[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76070-76077]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2000-7257; Notice No. 65]

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC); Working Group Activity
Update

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

ACTION: Announcement of Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Working Group Activities.

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

SUMMARY: The FRA is updating its announcement of RSAC's Working Group
activities to reflect its current status.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Woolverton, RSAC Designated
Federal Officer/Administrative Officer, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Robert
Lauby, Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Mailstop 25, Washington,
DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice serves to update FRA's last
announcement of working group activities and status reports of August
20, 2010 (75 FR 51525). The 42nd full RSAC meeting was held September
23, 2010, and the 43rd meeting is scheduled for December 14, 2010, at
the National Association of Home Builders, National Housing Center,
located at 1201 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
    Since its first meeting in April of 1996, the RSAC has accepted 34
tasks. Status for each of the open tasks (neither completed nor
terminated) is provided below:

Open Tasks

    Task 96-4--Tourist and Historic Railroads. Reviewing the
appropriateness of the agency's current policy regarding the
applicability of existing and proposed regulations to tourist,
excursion, scenic, and historic railroads. This task was accepted on
April 2, 1996, and a Working Group was established. The Working Group
monitored the steam locomotive regulation task. Planned future
activities involve the review of other regulations for possible
adaptation to the safety needs of tourist and historic railroads.
Contact: Robert Lauby,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task 03-01--Passenger Safety. This task includes updating and
enhancing the regulations pertaining to passenger safety, based on
research and experience. This task was accepted on May 20, 2003, and a
Working Group was established. Prior to embarking on substantive
discussions of a specific task, the Working Group set forth in writing
a specific description of the task. The Working Group reports planned
activity to the full RSAC at each scheduled full RSAC meeting,
including milestones for completion of projects and progress toward
completion. At the first meeting held on September 9-10, 2003, a
consolidated list of issues was completed. At the second meeting, held
on November 6-7, 2003, four task groups were established: Emergency
Preparedness, Mechanical, Crashworthiness, and Track/Vehicle
Interaction. The task forces met and reported on activities for Working
Group consideration at the third meeting, held on May 11-12, 2004, and
a fourth meeting was held October 26-27, 2004. The Working Group met on
March 21-22, 2006, and again on September 12-13, 2006, at which time
the group agreed to establish a task force on General Passenger Safety.
The full Passenger Safety Working Group met on April 17-18, 2007;
December 11-12, 2007; November 13, 2008; and June 8, 2009. On August 5,
2009, the Working Group was requested to establish an Engineering Task
Force (ETF) to consider technical criteria and procedures for
qualifying alternative passenger equipment designs as equivalent in
safety to equipment meeting the design standards in the Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards. The Working Group met on September 16,
2010; currently there are no additional meetings scheduled. Contact:
Charles Bielitz,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (Engineering Task Force) The Passenger Safety Working Group
approved a request from FRA to establish an ETF under the Passenger
Safety Working Group in August 2009. The mission of the ETF is to
produce a set of technical evaluation criteria and procedures for
passenger rail equipment built to alternative designs. The technical
evaluation criteria and procedures would provide a means of
establishing whether an alternative design would result in performance
at least equal to the structural design standards set forth in the
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards (Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 238). The initial focus of this effort will be
on Tier I standards. When completed, the criteria and procedures would
form a technical basis for making determinations concerning equivalent
safety pursuant to 49 CFR Section 238.201, and provide a technical
framework for presenting evidence to FRA in support of any request for
waiver of the compressive (buff) strength requirement, as set forth in
49 CFR 238.203. See 49 CFR part 211, Rules of Practice. The criteria
and procedures could be incorporated into 49 CFR part 238 at a later
date after a notice and an opportunity for public comment. The ETF was
formed and a kickoff meeting was held on September 23-24, 2009. The
group met again on November 3-4, 2009; January 7-8, 2010; and March 9-
10, 2010. A followup GoTo/Webinar meeting was held on July 12, 2010.
The ETF developed a draft Criteria and Procedures Report that was
approved by the Passenger Safety Working Group during the September 16,
2010, meeting and by the RSAC Committee during the September 23, 2010,
meeting. The document has been placed on the FRA Web site at the
following address: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/RSAC_REPORT-%209-16-10.pdf.
    (Engineering Task Force II) To build on the success of the ETF in
developing a set of alternative technical criteria and procedures for
evaluating the crashworthiness and occupant protection performance of
passenger rail equipment in service at conventional operating speeds,
the FRA requested that the Passenger Safety Working Group re-task the
group to concentrate on developing crashworthiness and occupant
protection safety recommendations for high-speed passenger trains. The
Passenger Safety Working Group accepted the task on July 28, 2010, by
electronic vote. Under the new task, the task force may address any
safety features of the equipment, including, but not limited to,
crashworthiness, interior occupant protection, glazing, emergency
egress, and fire safety features. Any type of equipment may be
addressed, including conventional locomotives, high-speed power cars,
cab cars, multiple-unit (MU) locomotives, and coach cars. The equipment
addressed may be used in any type of passenger service, from
conventional-speed to high-speed. Recommendations may take the form of
criteria and procedures, revisions to existing regulations, or adoption
of new regulations, including rules of particular applicability. The
work of the re-tasked ETF is intended to assist FRA in developing
appropriate safety standards for the high-speed rail projects planned
in California and Florida. The ETF II held a kickoff meeting on October
21-22, 2010, to begin work on the new high-speed task and has a
followup meeting scheduled for January 11-12, 2011. Contact: Robert
Lauby,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (Emergency Preparedness Task Force) At the Working Group meeting on
March 9-10, 2005, the Working Group received and approved the consensus
report of the Emergency Preparedness Task Force related to emergency
communication, emergency egress, and rescue access. These
recommendations were presented to and approved by the full RSAC on May
18, 2005. The Working Group met on September 7-8, 2005, and additional,
supplementary recommendations were presented to and accepted by the
full RSAC on October 11, 2005. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
was published on August 24, 2006 (71 FR 50275), and was open for
comment until October 23, 2006. The Working Group agreed upon
recommendations for the final rule, including resolution of final
comments received, during the April 17-18, 2007, meeting. The
recommendations were presented to and approved by the full RSAC on June
26, 2007. The Passenger Train Emergency Systems final rule, focusing on
emergency communication, emergency egress, and rescue access, was
published on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6370). The task force met on
October 17-18, 2007, and reached consensus on

the draft rule text for a followup NPRM on Passenger Train Emergency
Systems, focusing on low location emergency exit path marking,
emergency lighting, and emergence signage. The task force presented the
draft rule text to the Passenger Safety Working Group on December 11-
12, 2007, and the consensus draft rule text was presented to and
approved by full RSAC vote during the February 20, 2008, meeting.
During the May 13-14, 2008, meeting, the task force recommended
clarifying the applicability of backup emergency communication system
requirements in the February 1, 2008, final rule, and FRA announced its
intention to exercise limited enforcement discretion for a new
provision amending instruction requirements for emergency window exit
removal. The Working Group ratified these recommendations on June 19,
2008. The task force met again on March 31, 2009, to clarify issues
related to the followup NPRM raised by members. The modified rule text
was presented to and approved by the Passenger Safety Working Group on
June 8, 2009. The Working Group requested that FRA draft the rule text
requiring daily inspection of removable panels or windows in vestibule
doors and entrust the Emergency Preparedness Task Force with reviewing
the text. FRA sent the draft text to the task force for review and
comment on August 4, 2009. The draft rule text was approved by the
Passenger Safety Working Group by mail ballot on December 23, 2009. The
target timeframe for the NPRM publication is January 2011 due to
competing Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) priorities. No
additional task force meetings are currently scheduled. Contact: Brenda
Moscoso,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (Mechanical Task Force--Completed) Initial recommendations on
mechanical issues (revisions to 49 CFR part 238) were approved by the
full RSAC on January 26, 2005. At the Working Group meeting of
September 7-8, 2005, the task force presented additional perfecting
amendments and the full RSAC approved them on October 11, 2005. An NPRM
was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2005 (70 FR
73070). Public comments were due by February 17, 2006. The final rule
was published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2006 (71 FR
61835), effective December 18, 2006.
    (Crashworthiness Task Force--Completed) Among its efforts, the
Crashworthiness Task Force provided consensus recommendations on
static-end strength that were adopted by the Working Group on September
7-8, 2005. The full RSAC accepted the recommendations on October 11,
2005. The NPRM regarding front-end strength of cab cars and MU
locomotives was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2007 (72
FR 42016), with comments due by October 1, 2007. A number of comments
were entered into the docket, and a Crashworthiness Task Force meeting
was held September 9, 2008, to resolve comments on the NPRM. Based on
the consensus language agreed to at the meeting, FRA has prepared the
text of the final rule, incorporating the resolutions made at the task
force meeting. The final rule language was adopted at the Passenger
Safety Working Group meeting held on November 13, 2008. The language
was presented and approved at the December 10, 2008, full RSAC meeting.
The final rule was issued on December 31, 2009, and was published on
January 8, 2010 (75 FR 1180). Contact: Gary Fairbanks,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (Vehicle/Track Interaction Task Force) The task force is developing
proposed revisions to 49 CFR parts 213 and 238, principally regarding
high-speed passenger service. The task force met on October 9-11, 2007,
and again on November 19-20, 2007, in Washington, DC, and presented the
final task force report and final recommendations and proposed rule
text for approval by the Passenger Safety Working Group at the December
11-12, 2007, meeting. The final report and the proposed rule text were
approved by the Working Group and were presented to and approved by
full RSAC vote during the February 20, 2008, meeting. The group met on
February 27-28, 2008, and by teleconference on March 18, 2010, to
address unresolved issues, and the NPRM was published on May 10, 2010
(75 FR 25928). The task force was called back into session on August 5-
6, 2010, to review and consider NPRM comments, and the target date set
for the Final Rule is April 2011. Contact: John Mardente, (202) 493-
1335.
    (General Passenger Safety Task Force) At the Passenger Safety
Working Group meeting on April 17-18, 2007, the task force presented a
progress report to the Working Group. The task force met on July 18-19,
2007, and afterwards it reported proposed reporting cause codes for
injuries involving the platform gap, which were approved by the Working
Group by mail ballot in September 2007. The full RSAC approved the
recommendations for changes to 49 CFR Part 225 accident/incident cause
codes on October 25, 2007. The General Passenger Safety task force
presented draft guidance material for management of the gap that was
considered and approved by the Working Group during the December 11-12,
2007, meeting, and was presented to and approved by full RSAC vote
during the February 20, 2008, meeting. The group met on April 23-24,
2008, December 3-4, 2008, and on April 21-23, 2009, October 7-8, 2009,
and July 30, 2010, by GoTo/Webinar teleconference. The task force
continues work on passenger train door securement, ``second train in
station,'' trespasser incidents, and System Safety-based solutions by
developing a regulatory approach to System Safety. The task force has
created two Task Groups to focus on these issues.
    The Door Safety Task Group has reached consensus on 47 out of 48
safety issues and has five items that have been remanded to the task
force for vote that are addressed in the area of passenger train door
mechanical and operational requirements. The group presented draft
regulatory language to the Passenger Safety Working Group at the
September 16, 2010, meeting. More work remains to ensure the 49 CFR
Part 238 door rule consensus document and the proposed American Public
Transit Association (APTA) door standard (APTA SS-M-18-10) use uniform
language. The Passenger Safety Working Group conditionally agreed to
vote electronically on the proposal providing the new language and the
APTA door standard (APTA SS-M-18-10) are uniform. No additional Door
Safety Task Group meetings are currently scheduled.
    The System Safety Task Group has produced draft regulatory language
for a System Safety Rule, but further work on this rulemaking is
delayed until a study required by the RSIA to determine whether
additional protections are necessary to protect System Safety Program
Plan risk analysis data is complete. The RSIA deadline for the System
Safety Rule is October 2012. No additional System Safety Task Group
meetings are currently scheduled. Contact: Dan Knote,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task 05-01--Review of Roadway Worker Protection Issues. This task
was accepted on January 26, 2005, to review 49 CFR part 214, Subpart
C--Roadway Worker Protection (RWP), and related sections of Subpart A;
to recommend consideration of specific actions to advance the on-track
safety of railroad employees and contractors engaged in maintenance-of-
way activities throughout the general system of railroad
transportation, including clarification of existing requirements. A
Working Group was established, and reported to the RSAC any specific
actions identified as appropriate. The first meeting of the Working
Group was held on April 12-14, 2005. Over the

course of 2 years, the group drafted and reached consensus on
regulatory language for various revisions, clarifications, and
additions to 32 separate items in 19 sections of the rule. However, two
parties raised technical concerns regarding one of those items, namely,
the draft language concerning electronic display of track authorities.
The Working Group presented and received approval on all of its
consensus recommendations for draft rule text to the full RSAC at the
June 26, 2007, meeting. FRA will address the electronic display of
track authorities issue along with eight additional items that the
Working Group was unable to reach consensus on, through the traditional
NPRM process. In early 2008, the external Working Group members were
solicited to review the consensus rule text for errata review. In order
to address the heightened concerns raised with the current regulations
for adjacent-track, on-track safety, FRA decided to issue, on an
accelerated basis, a separate NPRM that would focus on this element of
the RWP rule alone. An NPRM with an abbreviated comment period
regarding adjacent-track, on-track safety was published on July 17,
2008, but was later withdrawn on August 13, 2008, to permit further
consideration of the RSAC consensus language. A second NPRM concerning
adjacent-controlled-track, on-track safety was published on November
25, 2009, and comments were due to the docket by January 25, 2010.
Comments have been reviewed and considered by FRA, and the target
publication date for the final rule is April 2011. Due to the ongoing
work of this separate rulemaking, the remaining larger NPRM relating to
the various revisions, clarifications, and additions to 31 separate
items in 19 sections of the rule, and FRA's recommendations for 9
nonconsensus items is now planned for June 2011. Contact: Christopher
Schulte,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task 05-02--Reduce Human Factor-Caused Train Accident/Incidents.
This task was accepted on May 18, 2005, to reduce the number of human
factor-caused train accidents/incidents and related employee injuries.
The Railroad Operating Rules Working Group was formed, and the Working
Group extensively reviewed the issues presented. The final Working
Group meeting devoted to developing a proposed rule was held February
8-9, 2006. The Working Group was not able to deliver a consensus
regulatory proposal, but it did recommend that it be used to review
comments on FRA's NPRM, which was published in the Federal Register on
October 12, 2006 (71 FR 60372), with public comments due by December
11, 2006. Two reviews were held, one on February 8-9, 2007, and one on
April 4-5, 2007. Consensus was reached on four items and those items
were presented to and accepted by the full RSAC at the June 26, 2007,
meeting. A final rule was published in the Federal Register on February
13, 2008 (73 FR 8442), with an effective date of April 14, 2008. FRA
received four petitions for reconsideration of that final rule. The
final rule that responded to the petitions for consideration was
published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2008, and concluded the
rulemaking. Working Group meetings were held on September 27-28, 2007;
January 17-18, 2008; May 21-22, 2008; and September 25-26, 2008. The
Working Group has considered issues related to issuance of Emergency
Order No. 26 (prohibition on use of certain electronic devices while on
duty), and ``after arrival mandatory directives,'' among other issues.
The Working Group continues to work on after arrival orders, and at the
September 25-26, 2008, meeting voted to create a Highway-Rail Grade
Crossing Task Force to review highway-rail grade crossing accident
reports regarding incidents of grade crossing warning systems providing
``short or no warning'' resulting from or contributed to ``by train
operational issues'' with the intent to recommend new accident/incident
reporting codes that would better explain such events, and which may
provide information for remedial action going forward. A followup task
is to review and provide recommendations regarding supplementary
reporting of train operations-related, no-warning or short-warning
incidents that are not technically warning system activation failures
but that result in an accident/incident or a near miss. The task force
has been formed and will begin work after other RSIA priorities are
met. Contact: Douglas Taylor,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task 06-01--Locomotive Safety Standards. This task was accepted on
February 22, 2006, to review 49 CFR Part 229, Railroad Locomotive
Safety Standards, and revise it as appropriate. A Working Group was
established with the mandate to report any planned activity to the full
Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, to include milestones
for completion of projects and progress toward completion. The first
Working Group meeting was held May 8-10, 2006. Working Group meetings
were held on August 8-9, 2006; September 25-26, 2006; October 30-31,
2006; and the Working Group presented recommendations regarding
revisions to requirements for locomotive sanders to the full RSAC on
September 21, 2006. The NPRM regarding sanders was published in the
Federal Register on March 6, 2007 (72 FR 9904). Comments received were
discussed by the Working Group for clarification, and FRA published a
final rule on October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59216). The Working Group met on
January 9-10, 2007; November 27-28, 2007; February 5-6, 2008; May 20-
21, 2008; August 5-6, 2008; October 22-23, 2008; January 6-7, 2009; and
April 15-16, 2009. The Working Group has now completed the review of 49
CFR Part 229 and was unable to reach consensus regarding locomotive cab
temperatures standards, locomotive alerters, and remote control
locomotives. The group reached consensus regarding critical locomotive
electronic standards, updated annual/biennial air brake standards,
clarification of the ``air brakes operate as intended'' requirement,
locomotive pilot clearance within hump classification yards,
clarification of the ``high voltage'' warning requirement, an update of
``headlight lamp'' requirements, and language to allow locomotive
records to be stored electronically. The Working Group presented a
draft 49 CFR Part 229 rule text revision covering these items to the
RSAC for consideration at the September 10, 2009, meeting, and received
approval. FRA has proceeded with drafting an NPRM with a target
publication date of December 2010. The Working Group may be called back
to address comments received on the NPRM after publication. Contact:
George Scerbo,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task 06-03--Medical Standards for Safety-Critical Personnel. This
task was accepted on September 21, 2006, to enhance the safety of
persons in the railroad operating environment and the public by
establishing standards and procedures for determining the medical
fitness for duty of personnel engaged in safety-critical functions. A
Working Group has been established and will report any planned activity
at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, including milestones for
completion of projects and progress toward completion. The first
Working Group meeting was held December 12-13, 2006. The Working Group
has held followup meetings on the following dates: February 20-21,
2007; July 24-25, 2007; August 29-30, 2007; October 31-November 1,
2007; December 4-5, 2007; February 13-14, 2008; March 26-27, 2008;
April 22-23, 2008; and December 8-9, 2009. At the April 2008 meeting,
FRA announced

that the agency would prepare an NPRM draft based on the discussions to
date and schedule a further meeting for review of the document. The
Working Group was reconvened December 8-9, 2009, and an updated draft
NPRM was presented to the Working Group for review and comment. The
Working Group has held followup meetings on February 16-17, 2010; March
11-12, 2010; May 24-26, 2010; and August 31-September 1, 2010. The
Working Group last met November 18-19, 2010, and is planning to
schedule its next meeting on dates to be determined by Working Group
members during the second quarter of FY 2011. No additional Medical
Standards Working Group meetings are currently scheduled at this time.
Once completed, the draft medical standards rule will be presented to
the full RSAC for approval. Contact: Dr. Bernard Arseneau, (202) 493-
6002.
    (Critical Incident Task Force) The Medical Standards Working Group
accepted RSAC Task 2009-02, Critical Incident Response, during the
December 8-9, 2010, meeting. The Working Group has been tasked to
provide advice regarding development of implementing regulations for
critical incident stress plans, as required by the RSIA. On September
10, 2009, the task was accepted to provide advice for development of a
proposed rule that implements Section 410 of the RSIA requiring each
covered railroad to implement an approved ``critical incident stress
plan.'' During the Medical Standards Working Group meeting held May 24-
25, 2010, the Working Group established a Critical Incident Task Force.
The task force will report its activities and progress to the Medical
Standards Working Group and full RSAC during each Working Group and
full RSAC meeting. FRA has solicited applications to assess the
applicability of current knowledge about post traumatic interventions
and to advance evidence-based recommendations for controlling the risks
associated with traumatic exposure in the railroad setting. The Medical
Standards Working Group plans to nominate the grantee for appointment
to the Critical Incident Task Force during the next Working Group
meeting. An initial meeting of the Critical Incident Task Force will be
scheduled once the grant has been awarded. Contact: Dr. Bernard
Arseneau,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (Physicians Task Force) A Physicians Task Force was established by
the Working Group in May 2007. The task force is developing medical
criteria and protocols for medical conditions. These medical criteria
and protocols will be used to assess the medical fitness of safety-
critical employees to perform safety-critical service under a proposed
medical standards rule. The medical criteria and protocols will be
presented to the Medical Standards Working Group and FRA when complete.
The Physicians Task Force has had meetings or conference calls on July
24, 2007; August 20, 2007; October 15, 2007; October 31, 2007; June 23-
24, 2008; September 8-10, 2008; October 8, 2008; November 12-13, 2008;
December 8-10, 2008; January 27-28, 2009; February 24-25, 2009; March
11-12, 2009; March 31-April 1, 2009; April 15, 2009; April 22, 2009;
May 13, 2009; May 20, 2009; June 17, 2009; January 21-22, 2010; March
3, 2010; and August 16-17, 2010. The Physicians Task Force last met
October 25-26, 2010, and plans to schedule a conference call during
December 2010 and to schedule a followup meeting during the second
quarter of FY 2011. Contact: Dr. Bernard Arseneau,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task 07-01--Track Safety Standards. This task was accepted on
February 22, 2007, to consider specific improvements to the Track
Safety Standards or other responsive actions, supplementing work
already underway on continuous welded rail (CWR), specifically to:
Review controls applied to the re-use of rail in CWR ``plug rail'';
review the issue of cracks emanating from bond wire attachments;
consider improvements in the Track Safety Standards related to
fastening of rail to concrete ties; and ensure a common understanding
within the regulated community concerning requirements for internal
rail flaw inspections. The tasks were assigned to the Track Safety
Standards Working Group. The Working Group will report any planned
activity to the full Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting,
including milestones for completion of projects and progress toward
completion. The first Working Group meeting was held on June 27-28,
2007, and the group met again on August 15-16, 2007, and October 23-24,
2007. Two task forces were created under the Working Group: Concrete
Ties Task Force and Rail Integrity Task Force. The Concrete Ties Task
Force met on November 26-27, 2007; February 13-14, 2008; April 16-17,
2008; July 9-10, 2008; and September 17-18, 2008. The Concrete Ties
Task Force finalized consensus language regarding concrete crossties
(49 CFR Part 213) and presented a recommendation to the Track Standards
Working Group at the November 20, 2008, Working Group meeting. The
language was approved by both the Working Group and the December 10,
2008, RSAC meeting and the task force was dissolved. The Concrete
Crossties NPRM was published on August 26, 2010 (75 FR 52490). The
Track Standards Working Group met on October 26-27, 2010, to discuss
the outstanding issue of Plug rail. The Working Group reached consensus
on regulatory language regarding the reuse of plug rail, and the
consensus language will be presented to the RSAC Committee during the
December 14, 2010, meeting for approval. RSAC Task 07-01 will be
complete if approved by the Committee and no further Working Group
meetings are currently scheduled. Contact: Carlo Patrick, (202) 493-
6399.
    Task 08-03--Track Safety Standards Rail Integrity. This task was
accepted on September 10, 2008, to consider specific improvements to
the Track Safety Standards or other responsive actions designed to
enhance rail integrity. The Rail Integrity Task Force was created in
October 2007 under Task 07-01 and first met on November 28-29, 2007.
The task force met on February 12-13, 2008; April 15-16, 2008; July 8-
9, 2008; September 16-17, 2008; February 3-4, 2009; June 16-17, 2009;
October 29-30, 2009; January 20-21, 2010; March 9-11, 2010; and April
20, 2010. Consensus has been achieved on bond wires and a common
understanding on internal rail flaw inspections has been reached. The
task force has reached consensus to recommend to the Working Group that
the item regarding ``the effect of rail head wear, surface conditions
and other relevant factors on the acquisition and interpretation of
internal rail flaw test results'' be closed. The task force does not
recommend regulatory action concerning head wear. Surface conditions
and their effect on test integrity has been discussed and understood
during dialogue concerning common understanding on internal rail flaw
inspections. The task force believes that new technology has been
developed that improves test performance and will impact the effect of
head wear and surface conditions on interpretation of internal rail
flaw test results. Consensus text was developed on recommended changes
that would approach a performance-based approach to flaw detection
scheduling. However, the group did not reach consensus on what length
of segment of track is practical to use on determining test cycles.
Consensus text has been finalized for recommended changes to 49 CFR
213.113 (Defective rails), 213.237 (Rail inspection), and 213.241
(Inspection records). The task force has developed a new 49 CFR
213.238, Qualified operator language, that defines the

minimum requirements for the training of a rail flaw detector car
operator. The task force presented the consensus language to the Track
Standards Working Group during the July 28-30, 2010, meeting and the
Track Standards Working Group presented its consensus recommendations
to the RSAC Committee for approval during the September 23, 2010,
Committee meeting. By majority vote, the RSAC accepted the
recommendations of the Track Standards Working Group and forwarded
those recommendations to the FRA Administrator completing RSAC Task 08-
03. The associated NPRM is currently in development. Contact: Carlo
Patrick,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task No. 08-04--Positive Train Control. This task was accepted on
December 10, 2008, to provide advice regarding the development of
implementing regulations for Positive Train Control (PTC) systems and
their deployment under the RSIA. The task included a requirement to
convene an initial meeting no later than January 2009, and to report
recommendations back to RSAC no later than April 24, 2009. The PTC
Working Group was created in December 2008 by Working Group member
nominations from committee member organizations under Task 08-04, and
the kickoff meeting was held on January 26-27, 2009. The group met
again on February 11-13; 25-27; March 17-18, 2009; and March 31-April
1, 2009. On April 2, 2009, the RSAC approved the request by the Working
Group for agreement to vote on the draft rule text recommendations from
the working group by mail ballot. On May 11, 2009, by majority vote via
mail ballot, the RSAC accepted the recommendations of the PTC Working
Group and forwarded those recommendations to the Administrator, with
the understanding that there are other issues for which FRA would be
making proposals with respect to their resolution. The NPRM was
published on July 21, 2009 (74 FR 36152), with comments due by August
20, 2009. In addition, a public hearing was held on August 13, 2009 (74
FR 36152). The PTC Working Group was reconvened on August 31-September
2, 2009, to discuss comments received on the NPRM, and the PTC Working
Group presented consensus rule text items to the RSAC for approval at
the September 10, 2009, meeting. The PTC consensus rule text was
approved by majority RSAC vote by electronic ballot on September 24,
2009, and the final rule was published on January 15, 2010 (75 FR
2598). Final rule amendments were published on September 27, 2010 (75
FR 59108). No additional meetings are scheduled.
    (PTC Implementation Plan Task Force) A task force was formed to
assist FRA in developing a model template for a successful PTC
Implementation Plan (PTCIP), and in development of an example
associated Risk Prioritization Methodology. PTCIPs were required to be
submitted by April 16, 2010, under the mandate of the RSIA. On January
12, 2010, FRA posted to its public Web site a final version of a PTCIP
template and an example risk prioritization methodology model for
prioritization of line segment implementation. This was the same day
the final rule was made available for public review. No further
meetings of this task force are currently scheduled. Contact: Tom
McFarlin,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (PTC Risk Evaluation Task Force) The creation of the PTC Risk
Evaluation Task Force was approved by the PTC Working Group on April 1,
2010, to develop a computer model to estimate the risk of PTC-
preventable accidents on a line segment basis. The group was formed by
nominations from members of the PTC Working Group and the kickoff
meeting was held via GoTo/Webinar on June 17, 2010. A followup meeting
was held on August 3, 2010, and an additional followup GoTo/Webinar
meeting was held on September 7, 2010. No additional meetings are
scheduled at this time. Contact: Mark Hartong,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task No. 08-07--Conductor Certification. This task was accepted on
December 10, 2008, to develop regulations for certification of railroad
conductors, as required by the RSIA, and to consider any appropriate
related amendments to existing regulations and report recommendations
for proposed or interim final rule (as determined by FRA in
consultation with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and the
Office of Management and Budget) by October 16, 2009. The Conductor
Certification Working Group was officially formed by nominations from
member organizations in April 2009, and the first meeting was held on
July 21-23, 2009. Additional meetings were held on August 25-27, 2009;
September 15-17, 2009; October 20-22, 2009; November 17-19, 2009; and
December 16-18, 2009. Tentative consensus was reached on the vast
majority of the regulatory text. The Working Group approved the draft
rule text by electronic ballot and the consensus draft language was
approved by the RSAC on March 18, 2010, by unanimous vote as the
recommendation from the Committee to the FRA Administrator. The
resulting NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 10,
2010 (75 FR 69166). The Working Group may be called back to meet and
review any comments received on the NPRM. After the final rule is
published, the Working Group will reconvene to make conforming
amendments to the locomotive engineer certification regulation as
appropriate. Contact: Mark McKeon,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task No. 09-01--Passenger Hours of Service. This task was accepted
on April 2, 2009, to provide advice regarding development of
implementing regulations for the hours of service of operating
employees of commuter and intercity passenger railroads under the RSIA.
The group has been tasked to review available data concerning the
effects of fatigue on the performance of subject employees and to
consider the role of fatigue prevention in determining maximum hours of
service. The group has also been tasked to consider the potential for
alternative approaches to hour of service using available tools for
evaluating the impact of various crew schedules and determine the
effect of alternative approaches on the availability of employees to
support passenger service. The group is charged to report whether
existing hours of service restrictions are effective in preventing
fatigue among subject employees, whether an alternative approach to
hours of service for the subject employees would enhance safety and
whether alternative restrictions on hours of service could be coupled
with other fatigue countermeasures to promote the fitness of employees
for safety-critical duties. The Passenger Hours of Service Working
Group was officially formed through the formal Committee member
nomination process in May 2009, and the first meeting was held on June
24, 2009. Followup Working Group meetings were held on February 2-3,
2010; March 4-5, 2010; April 6, 2010; May 20, 2010; and June 29, 2010.
Consensus has been reached on a majority of the issues and the draft
rule text has been matured. The Working Group plans to bring the draft
to electronic vote during the month of August 2010 and, if passed, will
present its recommendations to the RSAC on September 23, 2010. A
Passenger Hours of Service Task Force was formed to review collected
data and provide recommendations to the Working Group. The task force
met on January 14-15, 2010; March 30-31, 2010; and June 16, 2010. The
Working Group approved the draft rule text by electronic ballot on
September 22, 2010, and the consensus draft language was approved by
the RSAC on October 15,

2010, by unanimous electronic vote as the recommendation from the
Committee to the FRA Administrator. Work to finalize the NPRM for
publication is underway with a target publication date of April 2011.
The Working Group will meet on December 9, 2010, to discuss the
approved consensus language and the NPRM preamble. Contact: Mark
McKeon,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task No. 10-01--Minimum Training Standards and Plans. This task was
accepted on March 18, 2010, to establish minimum training standards for
each class and craft of safety-related railroad employee and their
railroad contractor and subcontractor equivalents, as required by RSIA.
The group has been tasked to assist FRA in developing regulations
responsive to the legislative mandate, while ensuring generally
accepted principles of adult learning are employed in training and
development, and delivery; determine a reasonable method for submission
and FRA review of training plans which takes human resource limitations
into account; establish reasonable oversight criteria to ensure
training plans are effective, using the operational tests and
inspections requirements of 49 CFR part 217 as a model. The Training
Standards Working Group was officially formed through the formal
Committee member nomination process in March 2010, and the first
meeting was held on April 13-14, 2010. A followup Working Group meeting
was held on June 2-3, 2010, and additional followup meetings are
scheduled for August 17-18 and September 21-22, 2010. A Task Analysis
Task Force was formed under the Working Group to develop a task
analysis template, and met in Florence, KY, on June 22-23, 2010, with
CSX Transportation hosting the event. The group developed a 21-page
task analysis document for an outbound train yard carman position,
which is complete regarding FRA railroad safety laws, regulations, and
orders. The Working Group met on August 17-18 and October 19-20, 2010,
and by GoTo/Webinar on November 15-16, 2010. The Working Group has
reached consensus and the resulting training standards draft regulatory
language will be presented to the RSAC Committee for approval on
December 14, 2010. No additional Working Group meetings are scheduled
at this time. Contact: Michael Logue,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task No. 10-02--Safety Technology in Dark Territory. This task was
accepted on September 23, 2010, to provide advice regarding development
of standards, guidance, regulations, or orders governing the
development, use, and implementation of rail safety technology in dark
territory, as required by Section 406 of the RSIA. Specifically, to
assist FRA in developing regulations responsive to the legislative
mandate and to report recommendations to the FRA Administrator for a
proposed or interim final rule (as determined by FRA in consultation
with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and the Office of
Management and Budget) by September 30, 2011. RSAC member organizations
have submitted expressions of interest in participating in the Dark
Territory Working Group and formation of the group and timelines for
the task are on the RSAC meeting agenda for the December 14, 2010
Committee meeting. Contact: Olga Cataldi,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Completed Tasks

    Task 96-1--(Completed) Revising the freight power brake
regulations.
    Task 96-2--(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to the
Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 213).
    Task 96-3--(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to the
Radio Standards and Procedures (49 CFR Part 220).
    Task 96-5--(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to
Steam Locomotive Inspection Standards (49 CFR part 230).
    Task 96-6--(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to
miscellaneous aspects of the regulations addressing locomotive engineer
certification (49 CFR part 240).
    Task 96-7--(Completed) Developing roadway maintenance machines (on-
track equipment) safety standards.
    Task 96-8--(Completed) This planning task evaluated the need for
action responsive to recommendations contained in a report to Congress
titled, Locomotive Crashworthiness & Working Conditions.
    Task 97-1--(Completed) Developing crashworthiness specifications
(49 CFR part 229) to promote the integrity of the locomotive cab in
accidents resulting from collisions.
    Task 97-2--(Completed) Evaluating the extent to which
environmental, sanitary, and other working conditions in locomotive
cabs affect the crew's health and the safe operation of locomotives,
proposing standards where appropriate.
    Task 97-3--(Completed) Developing event recorder data survivability
standards.
    Task 97-4 and Task 97-5--(Completed) Defining PTC functionalities,
describing available technologies, evaluating costs and benefits of
potential systems, and considering implementation opportunities and
challenges, including demonstration and deployment.
    Task 97-6--(Completed) Revising various regulations to address the
safety implications of processor-based signal and train control
technologies, including communications-based operating systems.
    Task 97-7--(Completed) Determining damages qualifying an event as a
reportable train accident.
    Task 00-1--(Completed-task withdrawn) Determining the need to amend
regulations protecting persons who work on, under, or between rolling
equipment and persons applying, removing, or inspecting rear end
marking devices (Blue Signal Protection).
    Task 01-1--(Completed) Developing conformity of FRA's regulations
for accident/incident reporting (49 CFR part 225) to revised
regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, and to make appropriate revisions to the FRA Guide
for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports (Reporting Guide).
    Task 08-01--(Completed) Report on the Nation's Railroad Bridges.
Report to FRA on the current state of railroad bridge safety
management; update the findings and conclusions of the 1993 Summary
Report of the FRA Railroad Bridge Safety Survey.
    Task No. 08-06--(Completed) Hours of Service Recordkeeping and
Reporting. Develop revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
hours of service of railroad employees. Final rule published May 27,
2009, with an effective date of July 16, 2009. (74 FR 25330).
    Task No. 08-05--(Completed) Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance.
Develop a rule encompassing the requirements of Section 417 of the RSIA
(Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance) regarding bridge failure. Final rule
published on July 15, 2010 (75 FR 41282).
    Task 06-02--(Completed) Track Safety Standards and CWR. Issue
requirements for inspection of joint bars in CWR to detect cracks that
could affect the integrity of the track structure published a final
rule on August 25, 2009, with correcting amendment published on October
21, 2009.
    Please refer to the notice published in the Federal Register on
March 11, 1996, (61 FR 9740) for more information about the RSAC.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2010.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-30620 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49141-49144]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19691]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0510]

Implementation of Legislative Categorical Exclusion for
Environmental Review of Performance Based Navigation Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering how
to implement Section 213(c)(2) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act
of 2012 which directs the FAA to issue and file a categorical exclusion
for any navigation performance or other performance based navigation
(PBN) procedure that would result in measureable reductions in fuel
consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise on a per flight basis
as compared to aircraft operations that follow existing instrument
flight rule procedures in the same airspace. In September 2012, the FAA
tasked the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) for assistance, especially
on how measurable reductions in noise on a per flight basis might be
measured and assessed. The NAC developed a Net Noise Reduction Method
which it recommended to the FAA. This notice provides the public an
opportunity to comment on the Net Noise Reduction Method and possible
variations of it to further inform the FAA's consideration of
interpretive guidance to implement Section 213(c)(2).

DATES: Send comments on or before September 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by ``Docket Number FAA-2014-0510''
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynne S. Pickard, Senior Advisor for
Environmental Policy, Office of Environment and Energy (AEE-6), Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) establishes a broad
national policy to protect the quality of the human environment and to
ensure that environmental considerations are given careful attention
and appropriate weight in decisions of the Federal Government.
Regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
(40 CFR parts 1500-1508) to implement NEPA establish three levels of
environmental review for federal actions. An environmental impact
statement (EIS) is the detailed written statement as required by
section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, and is prepared for those actions when one
or more environmental impacts are potentially significant and
mitigation measures cannot reduce the impact(s) below significant
levels. 40 CFR 1508.11. An environmental assessment (EA) is a more
concise document that provides a basis for determining whether to
prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no
significant impact. 40 CFR 1508.9. A categorical exclusion (CATEX) is
used for actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. 40 CFR 1508.4. A CATEX is
not an exemption or waiver of NEPA review; it is a level of NEPA
review.
    CEQ regulations require agency procedures to identify classes of
actions which normally require an EIS or an EA, as well as those
actions which normally do not require either an EIS or an EA (i.e., a
CATEX). 40 CFR 1507.3(b). In addition to identifying actions that
normally are CATEXed, an agency's procedures must also provide for
extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may
have a significant environmental effect which would preclude the use of
a CATEX. 40 CFR 1508.4.
    The FAA has adopted policy and procedures for compliance with NEPA
and CEQ's implementing regulations in Order 1050.1E, Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures, dated June 8, 2004 (as updated by
Change 1, dated March 20, 2006). Order 1050.1E lists FAA actions
subject to a CATEX in accordance with CEQ regulations, including
CATEXes for FAA actions involving establishment, modification, or
application of airspace and air traffic procedures. In addition, in the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95), Congress
created two legislative CATEXes for certain air traffic procedures
being implemented as part of the Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NextGen).\1\ Section 213(c) of this Act provides:

    \1\ The Next Generation Air Transportation System, referred to
as NextGen, is a term used to describe the ongoing transformation of
the National Airspace System (NAS). At its most basic level, NextGen
represents an evolution from a ground-based system of air traffic
control to a satellite-based system of air traffic management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) COORDINATED AND EXPEDITED REVIEW.

    (1) In General--Navigation performance and area navigation
procedures developed, certified, published, or implemented under
this section shall be presumed to be covered by a categorical
exclusion (as defined in section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations) under chapter 3 of FAA Order 1050.1E unless the
Administrator determines that extraordinary circumstances exist with
respect to the procedure.
    (2) NextGen Procedures.--Any navigation performance or other
performance based navigation procedure developed, certified,
published, or implemented that, in the determination of the
Administrator, would result in measurable reductions in fuel
consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise, on a per flight
basis, as compared to aircraft operations that follow existing
instrument flight rules procedures in the same airspace, shall be
presumed to have no significant affect [sic] on the quality of the
human environment and the Administrator shall issue and file a
categorical exclusion for the new procedure.

    These two new legislative CATEXes have been included in the FAA's
proposed Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impact: Policies and Procedures,
78 FR 49596 (Aug. 14, 2013). The FAA issued implementing guidance on
the CATEX described in Section 213(c)(1) on December 6, 2012. Technical
and legal issues have hindered implementing guidance on the CATEX in
Section 213(c)(2) because none of the FAA's current noise methodologies
or methodologies that the FAA has explored measure noise on a per
flight basis.
    The CATEX in Section 213(c)(2) has some unique characteristics. It
presumes no significant effect on the quality of the human environment
based on a review of three factors--fuel consumption, carbon dioxide
emissions, and noise. To apply this CATEX, the FAA is directed to
determine that all three factors would be measurably reduced when
compared to what is generated by existing instrument flight rules
procedures, instead of determining that there would be no potential for
significant impacts. It bases the determination of measurable
reductions on a per flight basis. It does not provide for extraordinary
circumstances to override the CATEX.
    Section 213(c)(2) states that this CATEX applies to ``any
navigation performance or other performance based navigation procedure.
. . .'' The FAA interprets this to mean NextGen performance based
navigation (PBN) procedures based on the terminology and because the
provision is entitled ``NextGen Procedures'' and is within a more
comprehensive Section 213 that is entitled ``Acceleration of NextGen
Technologies''. PBN procedures are flight procedures that rely on
satellite-based navigation, i.e. Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required
Navigation Performance (RNP). Accordingly, the FAA finds that the use
of this CATEX is limited to PBN procedures. The CATEX cannot be used
for conventional procedures (flight procedures that rely on ground-
based navigational aids) or for projects involving a mix of
conventional and PBN procedures, which is commonly the case for
sizeable projects such as an Optimization of the Airspace and
Procedures in the Metroplex (Metroplex). In addition, for projects
involving only PBN procedures, 95 percent or more already meet the
conditions of existing FAA CATEXes. Under these circumstances, the
Section 213(c)(2) CATEX would be expected to be used infrequently. It
could expedite review of a PBN-only project that would otherwise be
subject to an EA or possibly an EIS due to a high level of
environmental controversy or potential environmental impacts that would
preclude the use of another existing CATEX.
    The statutory language of Section 213(c)(2) states that the CATEX
cannot be implemented unless the FAA can determine that there are
measurable reductions of fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions,
and noise on a per flight basis. While measurable reductions in fuel
consumption and carbon dioxide emissions can be determined on a per
flight basis using current methodologies, aircraft noise poses unique
challenges for such a determination. Noise depends not only on the
varying noise levels of an aircraft as it flies, but also on the
position of the aircraft in relation to noise sensitive receivers on
the ground. Noise tends to increase at some locations and decrease at
other locations as PBN procedures shift and concentrate flight tracks.
Total noise in an area of airspace cannot be calculated by adding up
the noise levels at various locations on the ground, and noise levels
cannot be divided by the number of aircraft to produce noise per
flight. The FAA could not find a technically sound way to make the
noise determination required by the statute based on an analysis of
noise methodologies.
    In September 2012, the FAA tasked the NextGen Advisory Committee
(NAC) for assistance in further exploring how to make use of this
legislative CATEX. The NAC, established September 23, 2010, is a 28-
member Federal advisory committee formed to provide advice on policy-
level issues facing the aviation community in developing and
implementing NextGen. In response to FAA's request, the NAC created a
Task Group of diverse stakeholders representing airlines, airports,
manufacturers, aviation associations, consultants, and community
interests. The Task Group agreed with the FAA's technical analysis of
current methodologies and went on to develop a Net Noise Reduction
Method. The Net Noise Reduction Method received unanimous support from
Task Group members and was recommended to FAA by the NAC on June 4,
2013.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ http://www.rtca.org/Files/Miscellaneous%20Files/CatEx2%20Report%20NAC%20June%202013final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following extensive evaluation of the NAC's recommended Net Noise
Reduction Method, the FAA has decided to solicit public comment to
further inform the FAA's consideration of interpretive guidance to
implement Section 213(c)(2) using the Net Noise Reduction Method and
possible variations on it. There are reasons for seeking public review
in addition to the NAC's public forum. One reason is that this CATEX
has some unique statutory requirements that have presented challenges
to the FAA in determining how to implement the CATEX. In addition, the
Net Noise Reduction Method would introduce a new method for assessing
noise for certain proposed PBN procedures under NEPA that is different
in a number of respects from current noise analysis methodologies. The
NAC has also suggested an additional test, at the FAA's discretion,
involving a determination of significant noise impact which is further
explained below; and the FAA would like input from the public on the
use of such a test. Finally, there appears to be substantial public
interest and concern regarding this CATEX, as reflected in numerous
comments submitted on the inclusion of this CATEX in the FAA's proposed
Order 1050.1F.

Description of Net Noise Reduction Method

    The Net Noise Reduction Method provides for the computation of the
number of people who would experience a reduction in noise and the
number of people who would experience an increase in noise with a
proposed PBN procedure as compared with the existing instrument
procedure, at noise levels of DNL 45 dB and higher.\3\ If the overall
number of people is reduced, the NAC Task Group viewed this result as
reasonably demonstrating noise reduction as intended by the Section
213(c)(2) legislative CATEX; therefore, the noise reduction
determination required for the CATEX could be made. The example in
Table 1 below illustrates the result (i.e., a decrease in noise for
1,431,221 people compared to an increase for 1,018,055 people) that
could support the CATEX noise determination using the Net Noise
Reduction Method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DNL, the Day-Night Average Sound Level, is the FAA's primary
metric for assessing aircraft noise. DNL accounts for the noise
levels of individual aircraft events, the number of times those
events occur, and the period of day/night in which they occur.

            Table 1--Number of People Exposed to DNL Level PBN Procedures vs Existing Procedures \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Number of people    Number of people    Number of people
               DNL noise exposure band                     decreases           increases           unchanged
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45-60...............................................           1,405,952             961,579             445,074
60-65...............................................              15,531              45,401               6,792
Above 65............................................               9,738              11,075               3,964
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Total People....................................           1,431,221           1,018,055             455,830
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NAC Task Group additionally observed that if there would be a
net increase in people exposed to noise within the DNL 65 dB noise
exposure band and the amount of the noise increase would be described
as significant under FAA's NEPA criteria,\5\ community opposition could
delay implementation and negate Congressional intent of expedited PBN
procedures. Accordingly, the NAC Task Group indicated that in such a
case, the FAA might apply its significant noise impact threshold as a
second test in addition to the determination of net reduction in the
number of people exposed to noise. If the noise increase would not
exceed DNL 1.5 dB in the DNL 65 dB band and there would be an overall
net reduction in the number of people exposed to noise across all noise
exposure bands, the NAC Task Group concluded that this would appear to
further confirm that application of the CATEX is reasonable. If the
increase in noise in the DNL 65 dB band was DNL 1.5 or greater, the FAA
could decide not to use the CATEX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The example in Table 1 is used by the NAC based on noise and
population data from an EA for procedural changes at Chicago Midway
International Airport; however, in its June 2013 published report,
the NAC mixed this example with another example in reporting the
number of people in the DNL 60-65 noise exposure band, which also
resulted in inaccuracies in the total number of people. The FAA used
NAC source data for the example in this notice. The Midway EA may be
viewed at http://www.flychicago.com/midway/en/AboutUs/NoiseManagement/AirportNoise/Airport-Noise.aspx#FinalAssess. The NAC
also used an example based on the Greener Skies EA for Seattle
Tacoma International Airport, which is not repeated in this notice.
    \5\ The FAA's threshold for a significant noise impact under
NEPA is an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or more for a noise sensitive area
that is exposed to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure
level, or that will be exposed at or above this level due to a 1.5
dB or greater increase, when compared to the no action alternative
for the same timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA Considerations Involving the Use of the Proposed Net Noise
Reduction Method

    The FAA's first consideration is the extent to which the Net Noise
Reduction Method meets the statutory requirement for the FAA to
determine that proposed PBN procedures would result in measurable
reductions in noise on a per flight basis compared to aircraft
operations following existing instrument flight rules procedures. As
with current noise analysis methodologies, the Net Noise Reduction
Method does not produce a quantity of noise on a per flights basis.
However, the NAC Task Group has pointed out that the Conference Report
describing the final legislative language for the Section 213(c)(2)
CATEX expresses the Congressional intent to determine measurable
reductions on an average per flight basis. The Task Group confirmed
with Congressional staff that this language allows for averaging noise
impact on a representative basis for flights using a particular
procedure. The FAA is considering the extent to which the Net Noise
Reduction Method should be relied on to determine measurable reductions
in noise on a per flight basis under the statute and in light of the
accompanying Conference Report, and invites public views on this aspect
of the methodology.
    Another consideration is the extent to which the Net Noise
Reduction Method's reliance on a net reduction in the number of people
exposed to noise constitutes a net reduction in noise, since the two
reductions are not the same. An increase in the number of people
exposed to noise does not convey the amount of the noise increase, i.e.
whether it is a small or a large increase in noise. Similarly, a
decrease in the number of people does not convey the amount of the
noise decrease. If people receiving a noise decrease outnumber the
people receiving an increase, but the amount of the noise decrease is
small compared to the noise increase, is it appropriate for the FAA to
determine that there is a measurable reduction in noise?
    The FAA has explored this issue by using the same source data used
by the NAC in its example (see Table 1), but calculating differences in
terms of noise, i.e., the average change in the DNL at thousands of
locations within the area of airspace. The FAA did this calculation in
two ways--(1) a straightforward average of all locations, and (2) a
population weighted average. The population-weighted average was used
because where people reside in relation to locations on the ground that
receive more or less noise is relevant to assessing noise impact. The
FAA's results, expressed in changes in noise using DNL, are shown below
in Table 2. In both cases, the total average change in noise is a
decrease. Therefore, if the FAA used a Net Noise Reduction Method, but
relied on noise changes rather than population changes, the results in
this example could support the use of the legislative CATEX. The FAA is
giving further consideration to which approach (i.e., population
change, noise change, population weighted noise change) best fulfills
the letter and intent of the statute. The FAA is also considering
whether one approach offers greater public understanding, and invites
comments on these different approaches to a net noise reduction
methodology.

    Table 2--Average Changes in DNL Level PBN Procedures vs Existing
                               Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Straight average    Population weighted
    DNL noise exposure band       change in DNL    average change in DNL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
45-60.........................  -0.3 DNL........  -0.2 DNL
60-65.........................  0...............  0
Above 65......................  0...............  +0.1
                               -----------------------------------------

    Total Change..............  -0.3 DNL........  -0.2 DNL
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the examples in both Tables 1 and 2, the greatest reductions in
either noise or the population exposed to noise are at the DNL 45-60 dB
level, which is the lowest noise level that the FAA normally evaluates
for differences in noise that may result from certain proposed changes
in procedures. In Table 1, there are increases in the number of people
in higher noise exposure bands of DNL 60-65 dB and above DNL 65 dB. In
Table 2, the average DNL decrease occurs in the lowest noise exposure
band, while the average DNL change in the higher noise exposure bands
is either zero or a slight increase using the population weighted
average approach.
    The use of the total of all three DNL noise exposure bands to
determine a net noise reduction gives equal weight to lower and higher
levels of noise, while the FAA's practice is to give greater weight to
higher noise levels which people find more annoying, especially noise
levels above DNL 65 dB. Accordingly, the FAA is considering the extent
to which a mix of noise increases and decreases in different noise
exposure bands supports a determination of noise reduction, especially
when reductions at lower DNL noise levels would outweigh increases at
higher noise levels. A potential alternative approach could be to
require reductions in all three DNL noise exposure bands to support a
noise reduction determination for use of the CATEX. This alternative
approach would be expected to reduce the use of the CATEX, and it
appears less consistent with the statutory provision to compare
procedures ``in the same airspace.'' The FAA invites comments on this
aspect of the Net Noise Reduction Method.
    Finally, if the FAA decides to use the Net Noise Reduction Method
or a variation of it, the FAA must also decide if and how to employ its
significant noise impact threshold. The decision that is the most
consistent with the statutory language would be not to employ the
threshold at all. The statutory text is prescriptive in that a PBN
procedure that meets the test for measurable reductions ``shall be
presumed to have no significant affect [sic] on the quality of the
human environment and the Administrator shall issue and file a
categorical exclusion for the new procedure.'' Unlike CATEXes that are
administratively established under CEQ regulations, this legislative
CATEX is not subject to extraordinary circumstances; therefore, a CATEX
determination is not precluded by potential environmental impacts that
are beyond the specific parameters in the statutory text (i.e,
measureable reductions in fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions,
and noise on a per flight basis). As the FAA considers the viability of
employing the significant noise impact threshold in conjunction with
this CATEX, the FAA is soliciting public views on whether a threshold
test may and should be used. Further, if a significant noise impact
threshold test is used, should it be used only when there is a net
increase in people exposed at DNL 65 dB and above, as the NAC Task
Group has suggested, or should it be more broadly used to check for
significant noise impact when there is any increase in the number of
people exposed to noise at DNL 65 dB and above--even if there is a net
population benefit at that level?

Solicitation of Public Comment

    The FAA invites public comment on the entirety of the prospective
implementation of the CATEX in Section 213(c)(2) of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and particularly invites comment
on the following specific aspects of the Net Noise Reduction Method
which are under consideration by the FAA as described in this notice:
    1. Extent to which the FAA should rely on the Net Noise Reduction
Method to determine measurable reductions in noise on a per flight
basis.
    2. Appropriateness of determining that there is a measurable
reduction in noise if people receiving a noise decrease outnumber the
people receiving an increase, but the noise decrease is small compared
to the noise increase.
    3. Different approaches to a net noise reduction methodology (i.e.,
population change, noise change, population weighted noise change), and
whether the selection of one approach over another is preferred and
increases public understanding.
    4. Extent to which a mix of noise increases and decreases could
support a determination of measurable noise reduction, especially when
reductions at lower noise levels outweigh increases at higher noise
levels, and whether an alternative approach that would require
reductions in all three noise exposure bands to support the use of the
CATEX should be used.
    5. Whether a significant noise impact threshold test should be
used; and if so, if it should be used only when there is a net increase
in people exposed to noise at DNL 65 dB and above, or if it should be
used when there is any increase in the number of people exposed to
noise at DNL 65 dB and above--even if there is a net population benefit
at that level.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2014.
Lourdes Q. Maurice,
Executive Director, Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-19691 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51530-51532]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18473]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78446; File No. SR-CHX-2016-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Provide Web-Based Delivery of the Continuing Education Program

July 29, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4\2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on July 20, 2016, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CHX proposes to amend the Rules of the Exchange (``CHX Rules'') to
provide for web-based delivery of the continuing education (``CE'')
program (``CE Online System'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The proposed rule change is based on a recent FINRA filing
adopting web-based delivery of the CE Regulatory Element program.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75581 (July 31, 2015), 80 FR
47018 (August 6, 2015) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change to
Provide a Web-based Delivery Method for Completing the Regulatory
Element of the Continuing Education Requirements) (SR-FINRA-2015-
015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CHX has designated this proposed rule change as non-controversial
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) \4\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \5\
thereunder and has provided the Commission with the notice required by
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of this proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at (www.chx.com) and in the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes 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 CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The CE requirement under current Article 6, Rule 11 consists of a
Regulatory Element \7\ and a Firm Element.\8\ The Regulatory Element
applies to all registered persons and consists of periodic computer-
based training on regulatory, compliance, ethical, and supervisory
subjects and sales practice standards, which must be completed with
prescribed timeframes.\9\ Current Article 6, Rule 11(a)(3) provides
that the Exchange offers the following Regulatory Elements for Exchange
registered persons: The S201 Supervisor Program for registered
principals and supervisors; The S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader
Continuing Education Program for Series 56 registered persons; \10\ and
the S101 General Program for Series 7 and all other registered persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CHX Article 6, Rule 11(a).
    \8\ See CHX Article 6, Rule 11(b).
    \9\ See to CHX Article 6, Rule 11(a)
    \10\ The Exchange intends on filing a proposed rule change to,
among other things, replace the Proprietary Trader registration
category and the corresponding Series 56 exam and the S501
Proprietary Trader Continuing Education Program for Series 56
registered persons with the Securities Trader registration category
and the corresponding Series 57 exam and require such Series 57
registered persons to take the S101 General Program to fulfill the
Regulatory Element requirement, as the Series 56 was replaced with
the Series 57 exam by FINRA, effective January 4, 2016. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75783 (August 28, 2015), 80 FR
53369 (September 3, 2015) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To
Establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal
Registration Categories) (SR-FINRA-2015-017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that test center delivery is no longer available for
individuals other than those individuals that require accommodations
due to a disability,\11\ the Exchange proposes to adopt Article 6, Rule
11(a)(4), which states that the continuing education Regulatory Element
will be administered through Web-based delivery or such other
technological manner and format as specified by the Exchange.\12\
Should the Exchange determine to administer the Regulatory Element
through a delivery mechanism other than as described under this
proposed rule change, the Exchange would notify the Commission and
would need to file a further rule change with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As of July 1, 2016, FINRA required all participants to
complete their Regulatory Element session using the CE Online
System; provided that certain participants who, pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act, that [sic] need accommodations in
completing their session due to a disability may apply for an
accommodation and complete their session at a test center. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78281 (July 11, 2016), 81 FR
46133 (July 15, 2016) (SR-FINRA-2016-025); see also Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1990).
    \12\ The Exchange intends on filing a proposed rule change to
amend its fee schedule to reduce the cost of the Regulatory Element
from $100 to $55 to be consistent with Section 4(f) of the Schedule
A to the FINRA By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before commencing a Web-based session, each candidate will be
required to agree to the Rules of Conduct for Web-based delivery. Among
other things, the Rules of Conduct will require each candidate to
attest that he or she is in fact the person who is taking the Web-based
session. The Rules of Conduct will also require that each candidate
agree that the Regulatory Element content is intellectual property and
that the content cannot be copied or redistributed by any means. If the
Exchange discovers that a candidate has violated the Rules of Conduct,
the candidate will forfeit the results of the Web-based session and may
be subject to disciplinary action by the Exchange. Violation of the
Rules of Conduct will

be considered conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles
of trade, in violation of Article 9, Rule 2. The Exchange is not
proposing any changes to the Firm Element requirements under Article 6,
Rule 11(b).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an
exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers and section 6(c)(3) \15\ of the
Act, which authorizes the Exchange to, among other things, prescribe
standards of financial responsibility or operational capability and
standards of training, experience and competence for its members and
persons associated with members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)[sic](3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will improve Participants' compliance efforts and will allow registered
persons to spend a greater amount of time on the review of CE materials
and potentially achieve better learning outcomes, which will in turn
enhance investor protection. Further, while the proposed rule change
will provide more flexibility to members and registered persons, it
will maintain the integrity of the Regulatory Element program and the
CE program in general.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the harmonization of the Regulatory Element delivery
requirements across the various markets will reduce burdens on
competition by removing impediments to participation in the national
market system.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
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) \16\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \18\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \19\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative upon filing. According to the
Exchange, test-center delivery of the CE Regulatory Element is no
longer available for all individuals other than those who qualify for
special accommodations.\20\ The Exchange wishes to amend its rules to
reflect this change as soon as practicable. Based on the foregoing, the
Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore,
the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \20\ See supra note 11.
    \21\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CHX-2016-12 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 No. SR-CHX-2016-12. 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 CHX. 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 No. SR-CHX-2016-

12 and should be submitted on or before August 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18473 Filed 8-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88907]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28439]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER24-673-000]

PGR 2022 Lessee 5, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
PGR 2022 Lessee 5, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 8, 2024.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: December 19, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28439 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P