[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 93 (Monday, May 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26770-26771]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10328]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2021-0006-N-4]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

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

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified in the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
July 16, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be submitted on regulations.gov to the docket, Docket No. FRA
2021-0006. All comments received will be posted without change to the
docket, including any personal information provided. Please refer to
the assigned OMB control number in any correspondence submitted. FRA
will summarize comments received in response to this notice in a
subsequent notice and include them in its information collection
submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically,
FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR
regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on
the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons
that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce
reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in
a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and
(3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Inspection and Maintenance of Steam Locomotives.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Previously titled ``Inspection and Maintenance of Steam
Locomotives (Formerly Steam Locomotive Inspection).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 2130-0505.
    Abstract: The Boiler Inspection Act of 1911 required each railroad
subject to the Act to file copies of its rules and instructions for the
inspection of locomotives. The original Act was expanded to cover all
steam locomotives and tenders, and all their parts and appurtenances.
As amended, this Act requires carriers to make inspections and to
repair defects to ensure the safe operation of steam locomotives.
Currently, the collection of information is used primarily by tourist
or historic railroads and by locomotive owners/operators to provide a
record for each day a steam locomotive is placed in service, as well as
a record that the required steam locomotive inspections are completed.
The collection of information is also used by FRA and State rail safety
inspectors to verify that necessary safety inspections and tests have
been completed and to ensure that steam locomotives are indeed ``safe
and suitable'' for service and are properly operated and maintained.
    Type of Request: Extension without change (with changes in
estimates) of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): FRA-1, FRA-2, FRA-3, FRA-4, FRA-5, and FRA-19.
    Respondent Universe: 82 steam locomotive owners/operators.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion; annually.
    Reporting Burden:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The current inventory exhibits a total burden of 18,865
hours while the total burden of this notice is 1,357 hours. FRA
determined some of the estimates were not derived from PRA
requirements, thus leading to the increased figures in the current
inventory, which were decreased accordingly in this notice. Also,
FRA made a few textual edits and corrections on Forms 2 and 5.
    \3\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the Surface
Transportation Board's 2019 Full Year Wage A&B data series using the
appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that includes a 75-
percent overhead charge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual     Total cost
            CFR section \2\                Respondent universe      Total annual responses    Average time per response    burden hours   equivalent \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
230.6--Waivers........................  82 steam owners and        1 waiver letter.........  1 hour.....................            1.00          $77.47
                                         operators.
230.12--Conditions for movement--Non-   82 steam owners and        10 tags.................  6 minutes..................            1.00           58.40
 complying locomotives.                  operators.
230.14(b)--31 Service Day Inspection--  82 steam owners and        360 notifications.......  5 minutes..................           30.00        2,324.10
 FRA notification.                       operators.

--(c) 31 Service Day Inspection--       82 steam owners and        360 reports.............  20 minutes.................          120.00        9,296.40
 Filing inspection reports--Form 1.      operators.
230.15--92 Service Day Inspection--     82 steam owners and        120 reports.............  20 minutes.................           40.00        3,098.80
 Filing inspection report--Form 1.       operators.
230.16(b)--Annual inspection--FRA       82 steam owners and        120 notifications.......  5 minutes..................           10.00          774.70
 notification.                           operators.
--(c) Filing inspection report--Form 3  82 steam owners and        120 reports.............  30 minutes.................           60.00        4,648.20
                                         operators.
230.17--1,472 Service Day Inspection--  82 steam owners and        12 forms................  30 minutes.................            6.00          464.82
 Form 4.                                 operators.
230.20--Alteration Reports--Boilers--   82 steam owners and        5 reports...............  1 hour.....................            5.00          387.35
 Form 19.                                operators.
230.21--Steam Locomotive Number Change  82 steam owners and        1 document..............  2 minutes..................            0.03            2.32
                                         operators.
230.33--Welded Repairs/Alterations....  82 steam owners and        5 letters...............  2 hours....................           10.00          774.70
                                         operators.
--Written Request to FRA for Approval-- 82 steam owners and        3 letters...............  2 hours....................            6.00          464.82
 Unstayed surfaces.                      operators.
230.34--Riveted Repairs/Alterations...  82 steam owners and        2 requests..............  2 hours....................            4.00          309.88
                                         operators.
230.49--Setting of Safety Relief        82 steam owners and        5 metal tags............  1 hour.....................            5.00          292.00
 Valves.                                 operators.
230.96--Main, Side, and Valve Motion    82 steam owners and        1 letter................  2 hours....................            2.00          154.94
 Rods.                                   operators.
230.13--Daily Inspection Reports--Form  82 steam owners and        3,650 reports...........  10 minutes.................          608.33       47,127.33
 2.                                      operators.
230.17--1,472 Service Day Inspection--  82 steam owners and        12 reports..............  15 minutes.................            3.00          232.41
 Form 3.                                 operators.
230.18--Service Day Report: Form 5 \4\  82 steam owners and        150 reports.............  15 minutes.................           37.50        2,905.13
                                         operators.
230.19--Posting of Copy--Form 1 & 3...  82 steam owners and        4,320 copies of forms...  5 minutes..................          360.00       27,889.20
                                         operators.
230.41--Flexible Stay Bolts with Caps.  82 steam owners and        20 entries..............  2 minutes..................            0.67           39.13
                                         operators.
230.46--Badge Plates..................  82 steam owners and        3 metal stampings.......  2 hours....................            6.00          350.40
                                         operators.
230.47--Boiler Number.................  82 steam owners and        1 metal stamping........  1 hour.....................            1.00           58.40
                                         operators.
230.75--Stenciling Dates of Tests and   82 steam owners and        50 stencils.............  30 minutes.................           25.00        1,460.00
 Cleaning.                               operators.
230.98--Driving, Trailing, and Engine   82 steam owners and        1 metal stamping........  15 minutes.................            0.25           14.60
 Truck Axles--Journal Diameter Stamped.  operators.
230.116--Oil Tanks....................  82 steam owners and        30 stencils.............  30 minutes.................           15.00          876.00
                                         operators.
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \5\.........................  82 steam owners and        9,362 responses.........  N/A........................           1,357         104,082
                                         operators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 9,362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FRA made a minor text edit.
    \5\ Totals may not add due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 1,357 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$104,082.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of information that does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2021-10328 Filed 5-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Meeting Minutes

The Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health
(MACOSH)

April 29, 2010

The Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health
convened its fifth meeting under the current charter at 8:30 A.M. on
April 29, 2010, at the Newport Marriott Hotel, 25 America’s Cup
Avenue, Newport, RI 02840.  The meeting adjourned at 2:50 P.M.

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
Public Law 92-463, the full Committee meeting and the workgroup meetings
held on April 27 and 29, 2010, were open to the public.

Committee members present:

James Thornton, Chairman - Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Newport News

Stewart Adams - U.S. Department of the Navy

Alan Davis - American Seafoods Company

Alton H. Glass, Sr. - United Steelworkers

Lesley E. Johnson – International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Kenneth Killough – South Carolina Stevedores Association

Charles Lemon – Washington State Department of Labor and Industries

Jennifer Lincoln – NIOSH

George Lynch – International Longshoremen’s Association

Marc MacDonald – Pacific Maritime Association

Tim Podue – International Longshore and Warehouse Union

Donald V. Raffo – General Dynamics

Barry Richardson – The Columbia Group

Kenneth A. Smith – U.S. Coast Guard

OSHA Committee Staff in attendance:

Joseph V. Daddura, Designated Federal Official

Susan Brinkerhoff, Counsel

Veneta Chatmon, OSHA Exhibits Manager

Christie Garner, Administrative Assistant

Amy Wangdahl, Shipyard Workgroup Representative

Vanessa Welch, Longshore Workgroup Representative

Staff of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in
attendance:

Steve Butler, Director, Office of Maritime Compliance

Paul Comolli, Office of Maritime, Directorate of Enforcement Programs

David Doucet, Compliance Officer, Region VI

Leo Edwards, Area Director, Region III

Deborah Gabry, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management

Jim Maddux, Deputy Director, Office of Maritime Standards

Katie Nishimura, Compliance Officer, Region I

Phil Peist, Compliance Officer, Region II

John Vos, Compliance Officer, Region IV

Jack Reich, Compliance Officer, Region IX

Randy White, Area Director, Region X

Members of the Public in attendance:

Tracy Burchett, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Coast
Safety

Committee

Adrian Diaz, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Virginia

Jeff Facenda, Metro Machine, Virginia

Pete Favazza, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Coast Safety

Committee

Kelly Garber, Eagle Marine Services, Seattle, WA

Chet Matthews, Brunswick Marine Trade Association

Bill Mutter, Navy Crane Center

Kevin Nugent, Bayonne Drydock

Polly Parks, Southern Recycling

Jeff Smith, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Coast Safety

Committee

Susan Swanton, Maine Marine Trades Association

Cameron Williams, International Longshore and Warehouse Union

Chairman Thornton announced reminders, first, that the next MACOSH
meeting will be held July 13-15, 2010, in Long Beach, CA, and second,
that the deadline for nominating future committee members is May 7,
2010.  Roll call was taken and the public introduced themselves.  A
summary of the meeting agenda was given by the Chairman, followed by the
committee discussion of the minutes from the previous meeting held in
Washington, D.C., on January 20, 2010.  The Committee unanimously
approved the minutes as corrected (Pete Favazza’s name was misspelled
on page 10), and they were entered into the record under Docket
OSHA-2010-0001 as Exhibit 15.

Opening Remarks

Jim Maddux, Acting Deputy Director

 Directorate of Standards and Guidance

Mr. Maddux welcomed the Committee and public.  Mr. Maddux explained
that the Assistant Secretary, David Michaels, and Directorate of
Standards and Guidance Director, Dorothy Dougherty, had hoped to attend
the meeting but were prevented from doing so by other commitments;
however, they hope to make the next MACOSH meeting.  Mr. Maddux
acknowledged the tremendous amount of work that the Committee has
accomplished for the Agency and thanked them for their involvement.
Mr. Maddux provided the group with an agency update, discussing the
implementation of policies of the new administration, one being the
emphasis on standards and enforcement.  He expressed that recent
disasters, including the Tesoro explosion in Washington State, the mine
collapse in West Virginia, and the oil rig explosion in the Gulf,
highlight the importance of occupational safety and health work.  In
addition, Mr. Maddux talked about the Agency’s aggressive regulatory
agenda, which has shown an increase in funding and personnel resources.
The Agency is working hard to remove certain tasks from the regulatory
agenda and is placing emphasis on meeting projected deadlines on
remaining tasks.  This revisiting of the regulatory agenda entails the
completion of standing items, the removal of projects that are not
getting immediate attention, and the addition of regulations dealing
with high-impact areas.

	Current OSHA efforts include:

Hexavalent chromium.  In February of 2010, OSHA published a direct final
rule for hexavalent chromium that dealt with employee notification of
monitoring results. This was in response to a court remand.  No
significant or adverse comments were received.  Therefore, it is
anticipated that the Agency will announce an effective date for the
standard in the coming months.

Beryllium.  The Agency has initiated a peer review on risk assessment
and health effects associated with beryllium exposure and is in the
process of selecting academics and scientists that will be involved in
reviewing these highly technical sections of the standard.  OSHA
anticipates completion of this phase in November of 2010, at which point
the Agency will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.

Silica.  The Agency completed the peer review of the health effects and
risk assessment sections of this proposed standard in December of 2009.
OSHA is currently in the process of revising the two sections with an
anticipated publication date of February 2011.

Construction Cranes and Derricks.  OSHA considers this rulemaking to be
very important.   With several crane collapses in the last few years in
highly urbanized areas, significant media and congressional attention
has focused on the risks involved with cranes and derricks used in the
construction industry.  The Agency published a proposed rule, received
comments, and held public hearings on the subject.  The final rule is
undergoing review by OMB.

Hazard Communication.  OSHA published a proposed rule to update the
existing hazard communication rule to be consistent with the globally
harmonized system of hazard communication.  Some of the changes involve
adopting standardized pictograms and standardized hazard warning
messages on material safety data sheets and labels.

Walking and Working Surfaces.  OSHA is in the process of publishing a
proposed rule dealing with fall protection issues, including the use of
fall protection in the absence of guardrails, stairs, ladders, and so
forth.  OMB recently completed its review of the proposed rule, and the
Agency plans for its publication during May of 2010.

Combustible dust.  Last fall OSHA published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on combustible dust hazards.  Although the
record is technically closed, OSHA continues to solicit useful
information and data that will assist the Agency to fully understand the
effects of a combustible dust standard in the maritime industry.  The
agency held stakeholder meetings across the country from which a great
amount of information was gathered.  The Agency is in the process of
conducting site visits and research to determine the needed direction
with this difficult issue.  OSHA intends to initiate a small-business
panel, where the public and the panel will be briefed on the Agency’s
thinking on what a regulation would look like and its economic impact.
At that point, the panel will provide feedback to OSHA.

Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSD) Column.  This proposed standard, which
would implement a new 300 log with an MSD column, was published in
January of 2010.  The comment period closed in March and a public
hearing followed.  OSHA is working towards publishing the final rule in
July of 2010.

Modernization of OSHA Recordkeeping and Reporting.  This initiative
takes advantage of new Internet and electronic reporting systems to
upgrade our injury and illness reporting systems.  Currently, employers
keep records until the end of the year.  Then these records are provided
to OSHA or BLS, which compile the data, leaving a huge lapse of time
between occurrence of an incident and its report.  The Agency is
inquiring as to the feasibility of a system where incidents can be
reported as they occur (e.g., within a couple of days or week).  The
Agency intends to hold stakeholder meetings in July of 2010 to work
through this issue.

Questions and Answers:

Q:  Regarding the modernization of OSHA recordkeeping and reporting, Mr.
MacDonald cautioned Mr. Maddux that the system developed will need to
have the ability to track each incident from start to finish.
Additionally, he expressed the concern that a great deal of money has
been used towards tracking systems that are already in place and that it
will be a waste of money to completely scrap them.

A:  Mr. Maddux thanked Mr. MacDonald for expressing his concern and
discussed that it is not the Agency’s intent for systems that are
already in place to be scrapped, but stated that this is an item to be
looked at during the stakeholder meeting held in July.

Q:  Dr. Lincoln inquired how the Agency intended to regulate injury and
illness prevention.

A:  Mr. Maddux explained that a number of state plans have regulations
for injury and illness prevention programs now, which are either
mandatory or incentive-based programs.  Approximately 20 of these
programs exist through either their OSHA state plan or worker's
compensation divisions.

He further explained that OSHA standards are only narrow slices of
safety and health (e.g., requirements for guardrails on stairs or
material safety data sheets for chemicals). They do not provide an
overall framework of how to comply with those regulations set by OSHA
from a process standpoint.

Therefore, the Agency feels that the appropriate thing to do is to set
up a standardized process where employers look at their own hazards,
culture, and environment and work with their employees to develop and
institute solutions for hazards/problems without having a narrow OSHA
standard for every hazard that exists.

Q:  Mr. Adams requested that Mr. Maddux briefly describe the process of
the stakeholder meetings he mentioned and how employers get involved.

A:  Mr. Maddux stated that stakeholder meetings are for everyone, not
just employers.  The Agency's goal is to involve a broad range of people
with different interests.  He further explained the process, beginning
with the publication of a Federal Register notice that announces to the
public that OSHA plans to have one or more stakeholder meetings.  In
this notice, the date and location are provided, as well as information
on how one can become involved.  In recent planning for these meetings,
the Agency has been setting up an Internet site where people can submit
their requests to attend.

During the meetings, there are generally two types of participants --
(1)  " table participants," who are actually engaged in the discussion,
and (2) "observers," who are bystanders to the discussion.  However, the
meetings are very informal, allowing the "observers" to interject at any
point.  The ideas or information obtained from the stakeholder meetings
will be used in policy decisions in terms of what direction to go.

Q:  Mr. Davis encouraged OSHA to hold meetings and hearings a little
further west of the Mississippi River.  He noted the challenges in
today's economy for a business or an association to come up with the
money to send somebody to represent them in, say, Washington or Chicago.
 People who are in the trenches are not going to be able to take the
time out to travel extended distances.

A:  Mr. Maddux acknowledged the comment.

Q:  Mr. Favazza asked, in response to the discussion of the
modernization of records, whether the organizations that supply the
workforce will be able to access the information that is accumulated in
this process.

A:  Mr. Maddux responded that OSHA is working on the technological
issues associated with collecting and disseminating the data and would
probably like to get some input from worker representatives on these
issues.  He then described the kinds of questions the Agency is trying
to have answered:

How can the collected data be used to further occupational safety and
health?

Is there a way to provide access to a variety of users (e.g., unions,
academic community, etc.)?

How do we protect the privacy of the injured worker?

Do we provide a system where workers can report their own injuries?

Q:  Ms. Parks commented that the U.S. regulatory standards for ship
recycling are much more stringent than the ISO approach.

A:  Mr. Maddux responded to Ms. Park’s concern by asking if any of the
shipbreaking facilities she mentioned were certified under the ISO, to
which she responded "yes" and went on to explain that MARAD worked a lot
on the issue and felt that it was not the right approach to take.  Mr.
Maddux thanked Ms. Parks for expressing her concern and stated that he
would look into the issue.

Q:  Mr. Mathews asked whether the injury and illness prevention program
will be mandated for all employers, regardless of size.

A:  Mr. Maddux responded that that is one of the tough issues, and that
you don't expect the same level, especially of paperwork and of
sophistication, from small employers.  He used California as an example
of a model program approach.  This approach allows small employers to be
exempt from having to provide a written program.  Also, other small
employers in certain industries, such as agriculture and construction,
are required to use the model program provided.  This saves the employer
the task of developing their own paperwork for the program.  The agency
intends to develop a program that small businesses can modify in a way
that makes sense for them, while still protecting workers.

Q:  Mr. Thornton asked, with regards to the cranes and derricks final
construction standard, if there will be a construction directive that
comes out fairly soon, so that the maritime industry will be able to use
it for additional guidance.

A:  Mr. Maddux responded that he was unaware of the timeframe in which a
directive will be issued, since it is coming out of a different
directorate.

The introductory remarks of Mr. Maddux were entered into the record
under Docket OSHA-2010-0001 as Exhibit 16.  And his PowerPoint
presentation was entered into the record under Docket OSHA-2010-0001 as
Exhibit 17.

Longshore Workgroup

Marc MacDonald

Workgroup Leader

Mr. MacDonald reported on the workgroup’s top priorities, determined
at the January 20, 2010, meeting, and their status.

Working on the Apron or Highline Quick Card – This guidance highlights
the dangers of working in the apron or highline in marine terminals,
which is defined as the area underneath the cranes.  During the January
20, 2010 meeting, this document was completed and provided to the
Shipyard workgroup for review.  The Shipyard workgroup provided
suggested edits, which were incorporated into the document.  The
Committee unanimously voted in favor of accepting the document and
recommending that OSHA publish it.  The document entitled "Working on
the Apron or Highline Traffic Lanes and Safety Zones in Marine Cargo
Handling" was entered into the record under Docket OSHA-2010-0001 as
Exhibit 18.

Speed in Terminals – During the previous meeting held on January 20,
2010, the Longshore workgroup had a lengthy discussion about a white
paper that was submitted to the workgroup dealing with controlling speed
in marine terminals.  Differences of opinion existed on this topic, and
there was debate on how to proceed with the paper.  As a result, the
Committee recommended that the workgroup revisit the topic further.

The workgroup conducted some research and noted that some language could
be incorporated into the existing Traffic Safety in Marine Terminals
document, which was published in 2007 and exists on the OSHA webpage.
Therefore, the workgroup modified the existing OSHA guidance by adding a
section entitled, “Controlling Speed.”  They felt that this action
was a good way to address the concerns in the white paper.

The Shipyard workgroup was given the opportunity to review the document.
 Comments from the Shipyard workgroup were incorporated into the
document.  The Committee unanimously voted in favor of accepting the
document and recommending that OSHA re-publish the updated document.
The document entitled “Traffic Safety in Marine Terminals Guidance
Document” was entered into the record under Docket OSHA-2010-0001 as
Exhibit 19.

Stuck Cones – Semi-automatic twist locks (also known as “cones”)
are used to secure stacked intermodal containers to each other while
aboard a ship; they have some moving parts that can become stuck.  The
issue is how to get someone on top of a container safely to access the
stuck cone, and then how to make sure that that person is not in the
bight when the container is released.  The workgroup conducted
additional research and collected pictures in order to develop a
guidance document, which they hope to have completed before the end of
the current charter.

Container Rail Safety Guidance – The workgroup is working on a complex
container rail safety guidance document.  Much work needs to be done to
the document, and the workgroup is hoping to have it complete before the
full Committee for a vote by the next MACOSH meeting.

The Committee voted in favor of accepting the workgroup report.  The
PowerPoint presentation entitled “Longshore Workgroup Report of April
29, 2010” was entered into the record under Docket OSHA-2010-0001 as
Exhibit 20.

Remarks

Dr. Jennifer Lincoln, NIOSH

Committee Member

During the first meeting of the current charter, a question was raised
involving what the committee should be focusing their attention on.
Through discussion, it was determined that a good starting point would
be to look at the injury and fatality data from the maritime industry.
In response to this determination, OSHA worked closely with the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) to obtain injury and fatality data from the
maritime industry to find out which areas needed more
guidance/regulation.  The data were quite cumbersome, and Committee
members had a lot of questions they wanted cleared up, so they requested
that a speaker from BLS address the group.

At the January 20, 2010, meeting, Janice Windau from BLS gave a
presentation to the Committee, OSHA staff, and the public to try and
explain the data obtained from the maritime industry.  Although this
presentation was helpful in explaining the data, there were still a lot
of questions.  Therefore, MACOSH member Dr. Lincoln was asked to compile
the BLS presentation and data into a white paper that explains how to
use injury and fatality data for action.

A white paper entitled “Using Fatality Data for Action” was drafted
by Dr. Lincoln.  During her presentation, she referred to this document.
 She provide the group with a summary of the paper’s contents,
explaining that the “paper is trying to outline a process of how this
committee could use the information to understand what other things we
should be working on.”

The first section covered surveillance.  Surveillance is the ongoing and
systematic collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of
information.  Surveillance is used to describe the size and
characteristics of a particular problem and to identify the populations
at risk, the risk factors, the modifiable intervention points, and the
trends over a period of time.  Surveillance information is used to
design interventions, and since surveillance is continuing, it can be
used to evaluate the impact of those interventions.

Next, Dr. Lincoln went over the previously submitted BLS data and tables
by defining some of the acronyms used and simplifying the form used to
display the data.  The data, collected from 2003 to 2008, revealed that
a large number of fatalities in the shipyard industry occurred from
falls, including falls from ships; struck by falling objects; and caught
in or between.  For the same timeframe in marine cargo–handling, the
predominant fatalities were attributed to workers being struck by
vehicles and falling objects.

Dr. Lincoln gave examples, using data from the fishing industry, to
explain how important this type of data is in determining which safety
and health areas employers, OSHA, and individuals should concentrate on.
 She stressed that MACOSH, in conjunction with the agency, should start
to learn more about why these fatalities and hazards occur that are
associated in particular with falls, contact with objects and equipment,
and being struck by vehicles.   Also, Dr. Lincoln suggested that, given
the opportunity, the Committee should welcome additional face-to-face
meetings to learn about successful programs and more information about
the hazards.

The PowerPoint presentation entitled “Using Fatality Data for
Action” and presented by Dr. Lincoln was entered into the record under
Docket OSHA-2010-0001 as Exhibit 21.  Her white paper with the same
title was entered into the record under Docket OSHA-2010-0001 as Exhibit
25.

Shipyard Workgroup

Donald V. Raffo

Workgroup Leader

Mr. Raffo discussed the following top priorities of the Shipyard
Workgroup, which were determined at the January 20, 2010, meeting, and
their status.

Commercial Fishing and Confined Spaces – The workgroup drafted a fact
sheet, providing guidance on confined space safety on fishing vessels.
The Longshore workgroup reviewed the document and provided
recommendations, which were incorporated.  The Longshore workgroup
comments were presented in a document entitled “Longshore Workgroup
Comments on Shipyard Workgroup Document, Confined Space Safety on
Commercial Fishing Vessels.” This document was entered into the record
under Docket OSHA-2010-0001 as Exhibit 22.  The Committee unanimously
voted in favor of accepting the fact sheet and recommending that OSHA
publish it.  The document entitled “Confined Space Safety on
Commercial Fishing Vessels” was entered into the record under Docket
OSHA-2010-0001 as Exhibit 23.

A second fact sheet is in development on fall protection.  This fact
sheet is directed at the commercial fisheries operations, and vessel
captains or masters as the target audience.  It is the goal of the
Shipyard workgroup to have it complete and present it before the full
Committee for a vote by the next MACOSH meeting.

Arc-flash Safety – Many larger ships are starting to switch over to
electric systems.  This change increases the risk of fatalities due to
arc flashes.  The workgroup drafted an arc-flash safety document to be
incorporate into the upcoming SHIPS document on electrical safety.  The
document includes specific hazards and abatement recommendations.  The
workgroup’s goal at the previous meeting was to present it to the full
Committee for a vote; however, it was determined that the document
needed further refining.  The Shipyard workgroup will present a revised
document, in final form, to the full Committee for a vote at the next
MACOSH meeting.  The draft document entitled “Arc Flash Hazards” was
entered into the record under Docket OSHA-2010-0001 as Exhibit 24.

Scaffolding and Cranes – The workgroup has been conducting a review of
29 CFR 1915.71 (the shipyard employment standard for scaffolds or
staging) and 29 CFR 1926.550(g) (the construction standard for crane or
derrick suspended personnel platforms).  It is the Committee’s hope
that the information obtained will help OSHA to develop a standard that
is unique to the industry.  The Shipyard workgroup developed a white
paper with specific recommendations, which they are ready to submit to
the Longshore workgroup for review and comment.  It is the goal of the
Shipyard workgroup to have it complete and present it to the full
Committee for a vote by the next MACOSH meeting.

BLS Data – The workgroup wanted to ensure they were looking in the
proper work areas to see where the injuries and fatalities were in the
maritime industry.  At the previous meeting, held on January 20, 2010,
the workgroup tasked Dr. Lincoln with developing a one-page white paper
on BLS statistics on injuries in shipyard employment and advising how
the information could be useful to the Committee.  Dr. Lincoln completed
the white paper, “Using Fatality Data for Action” (Exhibit 25 in
docket OSHA-2010-0001), and presented her findings to the full Committee
with the aid of a Power Point presentation (Exhibit 21).  The Committee
unanimously voted in favor of accepting the white paper.

Fact Sheets – During the previous meeting, OSHA presented the Shipyard
Workgroup with two fact sheets:  one on ventilation during hot work, and
one on eye protection against radiant energy while welding.  The
workgroup provided some initial recommendations to OSHA.  The Agency
incorporated the comments and resubmitted the fact sheets for review and
comment.  The Shipyard workgroup conducted a secondary review and
provided additional recommendations.  The two fact sheets are currently
with the Longshore workgroup, which should be able to provide comments
by the next meeting.  These two fact sheets were entered into Docket
OSHA-2010-0001 as Exhibit 27 (Draft Fact Sheet, “Maritime Industry --
Eye Protection against Radiant Energy for Welding and Allied Operations
in Shipyard Employment, 29 CFR 1915”) and Exhibit 28 (Draft Fact
Sheet, “Maritime Industry -- Ventilation for Welding and Allied
Operations in Shipyard Employment, 29 CFR 1915”).

Shipbreaking Safety Guidance – During the early part of 2010, OSHA
published a guidance document entitled “Safe Work Practices for
Shipbreaking,” which provides recommended safe practices as well as
regulatory requirements for the shipbreaking industry.  Following
publication, several of the sections were challenged by a member of the
public, Polly Parks of Southern Recycling.

This document was reviewed by MACOSH during the previous charter.  The
Agency has requested the Committee’s involvement in working through
the areas under scrutiny.  The Shipyard workgroup requested that Ms.
Parks provide them with more detailed information on the specific
sections of the guidance document that she is concerned with, as well as
some recommendations.  With the provided information, the Committee will
then begin to work through some of the issues and will contact
representatives from the industry to determine what steps, if any,
towards revision are necessary.

The Committee voted in favor of accepting the workgroup report.  The
PowerPoint presentation entitled, “Shipyard Workgroup April 29,
2010” was entered into Docket OSHA 2010-001 as Exhibit 26.

Ending Remarks

Chairman Thornton thanked the Committee members and the public for their
attendance and reminded everyone of the upcoming meeting, which will
take place July 13 – 15, 2010 in Long Beach, CA.

At 2:50 p.m. – Meeting adjourned

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing
minutes are accurate and complete.

		___________________________________________

		James Thornton, Chairman

		Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health

These minutes will be formally considered by the Committee at its next
meeting, and any corrections or notations will be incorporated in the
minutes of that meeting.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 202 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63598-63600]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26520]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76149; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-085]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to End of Week/End of Month Expirations Pilot Program

October 14, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 1, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``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 proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend Rule 24.9(e) (End of Week/End of Month
Expirations Pilot Program (``Program'')) by clarifying the maximum
numbers of expirations permitted to be listed under the Program and by
deleting outdated text from Rule 24.9(e). The Exchange is not proposing
to change the substantive content of Rule 24.9(e).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.

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
    On September 14, 2010, the Commission approved CBOE's proposal to
establish a pilot program under which CBOE is permitted to list P.M.-
settled options on broad-based indexes to expire on (a) any Friday of
the month, other than the third Friday-of-the-month, and (b) the last
trading day of the month.\5\ The terms of the Program are set forth in
Rule 24.9(e) and End of Week Expirations (``EOWs'') and End of Month
Expirations (``EOMs'') are permitted on any broad-based index that is
eligible for standard options trading. EOWs and EOMs are cash-settled
expirations with European-style exercise, and are subject to the same
rules that govern the trading of standard index options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62911 (September 14,
2010), 75 FR 57539 (September 21, 2010) (order approving SR-CBOE-
2009-075).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maximum Numbers of Expirations Permitted Under Program
    This current filing proposes to amend Rule 24.9(e) by clarifying
the maximum numbers of expirations permitted to be listed under the
Program. In support of this change, CBOE states that EOWs and EOMs are
subject to the same rules governing standard options on the same broad-
based index class. In the filing to establish the Program, CBOE
provided example expirations for EOWs and EOMs and cited to Rule
24.9(a)(2) as the specific rule governing the expiration months that
may be listed for index options.\6\ Because Rule 24.9(a)(2) is phrased
in terms of ``standard monthly expirations'' (vs. the more general term
``expirations''), CBOE believes that some ambiguity may exist as to the
maximum numbers of EOWs and EOMs that may be listed under the Program.
In addition, CBOE believes that providing for the maximum numbers of
expirations permitted under the Program within Rule 24.9(e) would make
that Program clearer on its face by eliminating any potential ambiguity
about the maximum numbers of expirations permitted under the Program.
As a result, CBOE proposes to amend the Program as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id., at note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respecting EOWs, CBOE proposes to amend Rule 24.9(e)(1) by adding
the following rule text:

    The maximum numbers of expirations that may be listed for EOWs
is the same as the maximum numbers of expirations permitted in Rule
24.9(a)(2) for standard options on the same broad-based index. EOW
expirations shall be for the nearest Friday expirations from the
actual listing date, other than the third Friday-of-the-month or
that coincide with an EOM expiration. If the last trading day of a
month is a Friday, the Exchange will list an EOM and not an EOW.
Other expirations in the same class are not counted as part of the
maximum numbers of EOW expirations for a broad-based index class.

    In support of this change, CBOE states that under Rule 24.9(a)(2),
the maximum numbers of expirations varies depending on the type of
class or by specific class. Therefore, the maximum number of
expirations permitted for EOWs on a given class would be determined
based on the specific broad-based index option class. For example, if
the broad-based index option class is used to calculate a volatility
index, the maximum number of EOWs permitted in that class would be 12
expirations (as is permitted in Rule 24.9(a)(2)). For EOWs, CBOE
proposes to require that the expirations be for weeks that are in the
nearest Friday from the actual listing date, other than the third
Friday-of-the-month or that coincide with an EOM expiration. CBOE
proposes to set forth the listing hierarchy described in the original
Program filing, which provides that if the last trading day of a month

is a Friday, the Exchange would list an EOM and not an EOW.\7\ Finally,
CBOE proposes to clarify that other expirations in the same class would
not be counted as part of the maximum numbers of EOW expirations for a
broad-based index class. CBOE states that this provision is similar to
one recently adopted in connection with weekly CBOE Volatility Index
(``VIX'') expirations, in that standard VIX expirations are not counted
toward the maximum number of expirations permitted for weekly
expiration in VIX options.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id., at note 5.
    \8\ See fourth bullet under Rule 24.9(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respecting EOMs, CBOE proposes to amend Rule 24.9(e)(2) by adding
the following rule text:

    The maximum numbers of expirations that may be listed for EOMs
is the same as the maximum numbers of expirations permitted in Rule
24.9(a)(2) for standard options on the same broad-based index. EOM
expirations shall be for the nearest end of month expirations from
the actual listing date. Other expirations in the same class are not
counted as part of the maximum numbers of EOM expirations for a
broad-based index class.

    In support of this change, CBOE states that under Rule 24.9(a)(2),
the maximum numbers of expirations varies depending on the type of
class or by specific class. Therefore, the maximum number of
expirations permitted for EOMs on a given class would be determined
based on the specific broad-based index option class. For example, if
the broad-based index option class is used to calculate a volatility
index, the maximum number of EOMs permitted in that class would be 12
expirations (as is permitted in Rule 24.9(a)(2)). For EOMs, CBOE
proposes to require that the expirations be for the nearest end of
month expirations from the actual listing date. Finally, CBOE proposes
to clarify that other expirations in the same class would not be
counted as part of the maximum numbers of EOM expirations for a broad-
based index class. CBOE states that this provision is similar to one
recently adopted in connection with weekly VIX expirations, in that
standard VIX expirations are not counted toward the maximum number of
expirations permitted for weekly expiration in VIX options.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See fourth bullet under Rule 24.9(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above described changes hard code into CBOE's rule its existing
listing practice as to the maximum numbers of expirations permitted
under the Program. Currently, the maximum numbers of expirations are
not populated for EOWs and EOMs; however, the same is true for standard
expirations in certain broad-based index option classes. As a result,
CBOE believes that setting forth the maximum potential of a rule is
non-controversial and is consistent with how CBOE has treated EOWs and
EOMs under the Program since its adoption in 2010. In any event, CBOE
has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange
and the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary
systems capacity to handle any additional traffic associated with the
listing the maximum numbers of expirations permitted under the Program.
Remove Outdate [sic] Rule Text
    The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to Rule
24.9(e) by deleting rule text that references items with dates in 2011
and 2015 that have passed. The Exchange represents that this rule text
language is obsolete. Also, the Exchange is proposing to replace
references to ``regular options'' with ``standard options'' to conform
references to third-Friday expiring options (standard) between Rule
24.9(a) (which uses ``standard'' when referring to third-Friday
expiring options) and Rule 24.9(e).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ In particular, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that some ambiguity may exist
as to the maximum numbers of EOWs and EOMs that may be listed under the
Program. Setting forth the numbers of expirations permitted under the
Program would benefit market participants by making that Program
clearer on its face by eliminating any potential ambiguity about the
maximum numbers of expirations permitted under the Program. The
Exchange also believes that the current proposal is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade because it would hard code into
CBOE's rule its existing listing practice as to the maximum numbers of
expirations permitted under the Program.

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

    This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. Specifically, CBOE believes that providing clarification about
the numbers of expirations permitted under the Program would benefit
all market participants who trade expirations listed under the Program
and does not impose any burden on competition.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2015-085 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-085. 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 the 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-CBOE-2015-085 and should be
submitted on or before November 10, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26520 Filed 10-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41908-41909]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17596]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0336; Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-11]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Minocqua-Woodruff, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace areas extending upward
from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth at Lakeland/Nobel
F. Lee Memorial Field Airport in Minocqua-Woodruff, WI. The FAA is
taking this action as the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Arbor Vitae non-directional radio beacon (NDB).
The geographic coordinates for the airport in the associated airspace
are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Airspace
redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 5, 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, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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: John Witucki, 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 at Lakeland/Nobel F. Lee Memorial Field
Airport, in support of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR
operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (84 FR 22747; May 20, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2019-0336 to
amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Lakeland/Nobel F. Lee Memorial Field Airport. 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)
amends part 71 by:
    Modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.6-mile radius (reduced from 7 miles) of the
Lakeland/Nobel F. Lee Memorial Field Airport and removing the extension
to the southeast associated with the Arbor Vitae non-directional radio
beacon. This action enhances safety and the management of IFR
operations at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates were
adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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.

Lists 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 WI E5 Minocqua-Woodruff, WI [Amended]

Minocqua-Woodruff, Lakeland/Nobel F. Lee Memorial Field Airport, WI
    (Lat. 45[deg]55'41'' N, long. 89[deg]43'51'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of the Lakeland/Noble F. Lee Memorial Field
Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 8, 2019.
John Witucki,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-17596 Filed 8-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 73969-73970]
[DOCID:fr28de07-218]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Informational Filing

    In accordance with Sec.  236.913 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) has received an informational filing from the Ohio
Central Railroad System (OCRS) to permit field testing of the
railroad's processor-based train control system. The informational
filing is described below, including the requisite docket number where
the informational filing and any related information may be found. The
document is also available for public inspection;

however, FRA is not accepting public comments.

Ohio Central Railroad System

[Docket Number FRA-2006-26177]

    OCRS has submitted an informational filing to FRA to permit field
testing of the railroad's processor-based train control system
identified as OCRS Positive Train Control (OCRS PTC). The informational
filing addresses the requirements under 49 CFR 236.913(j)(1).
    Specifically, the informational filing contains a description of
the OCRS PTC product and an operational concepts document, pursuant to
49 CFR 236.913(j)(1). The OCRS PTC system is designed to prevent
authority limit and over-speed violations in non-signaled Track Warrant
Control (TWC) territory, and to prevent equipped trains from entering
the limits, without authorization, of on-track authority granted to
employees.
    OCRS desires to commence field testing in the fourth quarter of
2007, or as soon as practicable thereafter, contingent upon FRA's
acceptance and approval of their informational filing.
    Interested parties are invited to review the informational filing
and associated documents at the DOT Docket Management facility during
regular business hours (9 a.m.--5 p.m.) at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. All documents in the public docket
are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov
.

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications received into any of our dockets by name of the
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT(s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 19, 2007.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E7-25142 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P