availability metric is the total number of daily Amtrak trains per
100,000 residents in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) for each of
the top 100 MSAs in the United States, shown in total and adjusted for
time of day, updated on an annual basis. Many MSAs are served regularly
by Amtrak trains, but during inconvenient travel times. The metric, as
adjusted for time of day, shows only those trains that arrive or depart
between 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
    A commenter stated that there should be two economic and station
development metrics to measure the annual total economic value to
communities served by the intercity passenger rail service, accounting
for factors such as labor, value-added benefits, and increased tax
revenue, and to report that value as a ratio to the investment made in
a route. The commenter also stated that these metrics should be based
on an economic model developed by the Rail Passengers Association for
such a purpose. FRA declines to include these metrics in this final
rule. The final rule addresses service quality metrics that measure the
actual provision of rail service. Although important, economic and
station development metrics are indirectly related to intercity
passenger rail service. In addition, measures of economic and
development activity often require detailed information on local market
conditions, and as such, are not well-suited for national metrics and
may rely too heavily on general assumptions. Finally, these metrics
would impose a significant burden on FRA to identify the appropriate
data, obtain and track the detailed economic data, as well as to
develop modeling capabilities.
    A commenter stated that there should be an overlapping corridors
metric to measure the number and economic value of passenger trips
dependent upon intermediate connections on long-distance corridors. The
commenter stated that the data for this metric could be gathered using
the commenter's proposed economic and station development metric, with
underlying community economic data updated annually, as well as the
connections data from the final rule's missed connections metric. FRA
declines to include this metric in the final rule. The missed
connections metric is the percent of passengers connecting to/from
other Amtrak routes who missed connections due to a late arrival from
another Amtrak train, reported by route and updated on an annual basis.
The reported data from the missed connections metric would not
comprehensively identify intermediate connections on long-distance
corridors. FRA selected metrics to measure the public benefit of
intercity rail across all services and routes for the entire nation;
this commenter's proposed metric would focus exclusively on long-
distance routes. In addition, and as noted above, the proposed economic
and station development metric would impose a significant burden on FRA
to identify the appropriate data, obtain and track the detailed
economic data, as well as to develop modeling capabilities.
    A commenter stated that there should be a normalized route
performance metric, reported quarterly, which would measure route
performance for all routes on a per-passenger-mile basis and on a
passengers-per-departure from each originating station basis. FRA
declines to include this metric in the final rule and believes
presenting the route-level information without any normalization is the
most straight-forward method. The final rule does include a route-level
ridership metric (the number of passenger miles divided by train-
miles), which is consistent with section 207. Parties seeking
additional information about Amtrak's operating statistics may also
view Amtrak's monthly performance report, which includes seat miles and
passenger miles by route.
    Several commenters expressed general support for metrics that would
measure the public benefit of passenger rail service. One commenter
stated that the public benefits metrics listed in paragraphs (a)
through (d) should be reported by route and updated quarterly, on a
rolling previous 12-month basis. FRA recognizes the value of providing
data more frequently to measure performance and to identify trends;
however, the metrics listed in paragraphs (a) through (d) require
significant effort to compile and calculate, and as such, the final
rule provides that these metrics will be updated annually.

VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13771, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is a significant regulatory action within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866 and DOT regulatory policies and
procedures.\36\ Although the economic effects of this regulatory action
would not exceed the $100 million annual threshold defined by Executive
Order 12866, the rule is significant because of the substantial public
interest in this rulemaking. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act
(5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs designated this rule as not a 'major rule', as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2). Additionally, this final rule is considered an E.O.
13771 regulatory action. FRA has provided an assessment of the costs
and cost savings expected to result from implementation of this final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 5 CFR part 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Metrics and Standards measure the performance and service
quality of intercity passenger train operations as required by section
207 of PRIIA. The Metrics and Standards are generally organized into
four categories: On-time performance and train delays, customer
service, financial, and public benefits.
    Other than the OTP and train delays metrics, the Metrics and
Standards in this final rule will not pose an additional burden on
Amtrak or host railroads. Data such as customer satisfaction and
financial information are currently collected by Amtrak and submitted
to FRA on a quarterly basis. Other data, such as train delays and on-
time performance, are already shared between Amtrak, host railroads,
and State partners under their various agreements, and the parties have
established protocols for data collection, distribution, and
reconciliation. While the final rule establishes a new data-sharing
requirement to assist with calculating the customer OTP metric
(specifically, ridership data), this information is already collected
by

Amtrak. FRA expects that Amtrak will develop additional procedures for
sharing the data, but once established, this data sharing will not
burden Amtrak's routine operations. Lastly, as a result of the final
rule's customer OTP metric and certified schedule metric, Amtrak and
host railroads may adjust Amtrak's published train schedules to align
them with the customer OTP metric. As part of that effort, Amtrak and
host railroads may meet to discuss and agree upon schedule
modifications to the published train schedules.
    FRA received several comments addressing the NPRM's cost estimates.
A commenter stated that the NPRM did not consider the impacts on
commerce and a host railroad's operations and network fluidity. A
commenter stated that a customer OTP metric enlarges an Amtrak train's
dispatch footprint (i.e., it would cause the Amtrak train to take up
additional capacity on the rail line) by redistributing recovery time
across intermediate stations, which threatens overall network fluidity,
among other things. A commenter also stated that FRA did not consider
payments made under the Amtrak-host railroad operating agreement
(stating that the host railroad would receive less performance payments
under the existing operating agreement).
    With respect to operational impacts, as discussed above, delays
waiting for time at intermediate stations can be foreclosed by an
accurate schedule, and adjusting train schedules to align with the
customer OTP metric does not mean that recovery time will be added for
each station. In the case of capacity impacts great enough to warrant
schedule change, reductions of time to remove these waits would be in
both parties' interests. In addition, with respect to impacts on
commerce specifically, Congress has accounted for such impacts by
providing that STB's enforcement of the preference requirement not
``materially lessen the quality of freight transportation provided to
shippers.'' 49 U.S.C. 24308(c).
    With respect to operating agreement payments, as noted previously,
FRA is not a party to these agreements, nor does FRA have knowledge of
their details. More importantly, this final rule does not require a
change to the performance payment provisions in these operating
agreements; Amtrak and the host railroads may continue to maintain
those provisions as they see fit. In addition, to the extent a host
railroad is concerned with receiving lower performance payments as a
result of this final rule, this final rule likewise does not prohibit a
host railroad and Amtrak from revising the performance payments to
align better with the customer OTP metric and standard. In fact,
section 207(c) provides that, to the extent practicable, Amtrak and its
host rail carriers shall incorporate the metrics and standards into
their operating agreements. Also, performance payments, even if they
change as a result of the final rule, would not change the estimate of
costs due to the rule. Such payments represent transfers rather than
economic costs or benefits.
    One Class I host railroad stated that the NPRM's costs are too low
and their railroad alone would require more than 10 hours of meetings
to discuss schedule revisions. Another commenter stated that the NPRM
substantially underestimates the cost of attempting to negotiate
schedule adjustments. Based on both comments, FRA has increased the
estimate of meeting time and number of employees present at those
meetings. Additionally, FRA has substantially increased the estimated
time spent on preparations for those meetings.
    For purposes of this analysis, FRA assumed that Amtrak and each of
the host railroads will meet five times during the first year to
discuss revising Amtrak's published train schedules. Amtrak currently
has agreements with 31 host railroads. However, eight of these
railroads are switching and terminal railroads that will not likely be
involved in revising schedules, as Amtrak only operates over those
railroads for short distances with very few, if any, stops. If there
were discussions between Amtrak and any switching and terminal
railroads, then it would be expected to occur during regularly
scheduled meetings and would not add any additional burden.
    For the other 23 host railroads, schedule discussions will add time
to the current regular meetings held with Amtrak. FRA estimates that
such schedule alignment discussions will require 40 hours of additional
meeting time between Amtrak and each host railroad. FRA estimates that
Amtrak and the host railroad will each have approximately three to six
employees at the meetings. The following table shows the total cost of
additional meetings between Amtrak and host railroads. Wage rates for
this analysis are from the Surface Transportation Board.\37\ Over the
course of the first year, the total cost of all additional meetings is
estimated to be $473,473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 2019 STB wage rates: Group #100 (Executives, Officials, &
Staff Assistants) Wage Rate: $68.81 or $120.42 with a 75% burden
factor. Group #200 (Professional & Administrative) Wage Rate: $44.27
or $77.47 with a 75% burden factor. Group #500 (Transportation
(Other than Train & Engine)) Wage Rate: $40.27 or $70.47 with a 75%
burden factor.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO20.012

    Further, to prepare for these meetings, Amtrak and the 23 host
railroads will need to perform the necessary groundwork, such as
historical data analysis of schedules and train performance, as well as
analysis of current and future operations, to determine how train
schedules should be adjusted.
    The cost for host railroads preparing for meetings will vary
depending on the complexity of the route. FRA estimates that Class I
host railroads will have more extensive discussions than non-Class I
host railroads, based largely on the greater amount of route miles
hosted. The following table shows the estimated costs of preparing for
meetings. Amtrak and host railroads will spend $296,991 over the first
year to prepare for meetings.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO20.013

    In addition, this final rule requires Amtrak and a host railroad to
transmit a monthly joint letter and status report, signed by their
respective chief executive officers, to certain members of Congress and
other Federal Agencies, in the event a published train schedule is not
certified or disputed by May 17, 2021. Preparing a letter will require
staff time by Amtrak and a host railroad, as well as briefings with the
chief executive officers. Each letter is estimated to require $656 in
labor on Amtrak's part and $1,022 on the host railroad's part. FRA
estimates that five

routes will be uncertified in the first year; each of which will
require six letters. The following table shows the cost of the monthly
letters. The total estimated cost to Amtrak and host railroads for the
monthly letters will be $50,328.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO20.014

    Due to this final rule, some railroads will likely initiate a non-
binding dispute resolution process to resolve scheduling disputes.
Based on an analysis by FRA subject matter experts, FRA estimates that
approximately eight routes will be the subject of such a non-binding
dispute resolution process. The total cost of such a non-binding
dispute resolution process per route is approximately $52,200, and
includes arbitration fees and compensation for the arbitrators. The
arbitration fees include administrative fees,\38\ arbitrator travel
fees, and the rental fee for the hearing room. The table below shows
the estimated costs for arbitration fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Source: American Arbitration Association. See
``Undetermined Monetary Claims'' Standard Fee Schedule at https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Commercial_Arbitration_Fee_Schedule_1.pdf
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO20.015

    The compensation paid to the arbitrator includes time spent by each
arbitrator to prepare for the hearing, attend the hearing, and review
the hearing after completion. The table below shows the costs for
arbitrator compensation.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO20.016

    The cost paid to the arbitrator for their fees would likely be
split between Amtrak and the host railroad. The total estimated cost
paid for the non-binding dispute resolution process for all eight
routes will be $417,600, which includes arbitrator fees and
compensation.
    In addition to the cost of the non-binding dispute resolution
process, Amtrak and a host railroad will need to spend time: Preparing
documents in connection with the non-binding dispute resolution
process; briefing within their organization; and attending the hearing.
The table below shows the total cost of staff time for Amtrak and host
railroads.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO20.017

    FRA assumes that employees from the host railroads and Amtrak will
incur some travel costs associated with the hearing. The table below
shows the expected cost of travel related to the hearing.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO20.018

    The table below shows all estimated arbitration costs, including:
Arbitration fees, arbitrator compensation, and Amtrak and the host
railroad's staff compensation and travel costs. The total cost of
arbitration will be $714,030.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO20.019

    This final rule also requires Amtrak to share ridership data with
each host railroad. Although systems are already in place for sharing
of data, it will require additional time from an Amtrak employee to
process the data and share it in a usable format. The following table
shows the estimated cost to prepare the ridership reports.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO20.020

    All costs of this final rule are expected to be incurred during the
first year, though FRA acknowledges that conditions regarding a
certified schedule may change. The following table shows the total 10-
year estimated costs of this final rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO20.021

    This final rule may result in lower operational costs for Amtrak,
to the extent it results in improved OTP, which may reduce labor costs,
fuel costs, and expenses related to passenger inconvenience, and
provide benefits to riders from improved travel times and service
quality. A commenter stated that improved OTP should have a significant
effect on ridership, and would make a significant improvement on
operational costs. Due to the difficulty in precisely quantifying
future benefits to rail routes from improved OTP, combined with the
inability to quantify the potential synergistic effects that improved
OTP reliability could have across Amtrak's network, FRA has not
quantified any potential benefits from lower operational costs or
improved service that may result from the final rule. FRA expects
Amtrak and host railroads to structure schedules to achieve performance
that meets this rule's OTP standard, thus avoiding the expense and
uncertainty of an STB investigation under section 213.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
and Executive Order 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require agency
review of proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small
entities. When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the RFA requires
the agency to ``prepare and make available for public comment an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis'' which will ``describe the
impact of the

proposed rule on small entities.'' (5 U.S.C. 603(a)).
    Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu
of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Out of an abundance of caution, FRA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis to accompany the NPRM, which noted no
expected significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. FRA is now certifying that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Description of Small Entities Impacted by the Final Rule
    In consultation with the SBA, FRA has published a final statement
of agency policy that formally establishes ``small entities'' or
``small businesses'' as railroads, contractors, and hazardous materials
shippers that meet the revenue requirements of a Class III railroad as
set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1-1, which is $20 million or less in
inflation-adjusted annual revenues, and commuter railroads or small
governmental jurisdictions that serve populations of 50,000 or less.
See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003) (codified at appendix C to 49 CFR part
209). FRA is using this definition for the final rule.
    This final rule impacts Amtrak and Amtrak's host railroads. This
rule establishes a customer OTP metric and a certified schedule metric,
which will likely result in modifications to some of Amtrak's published
train schedules. Amtrak is not a small entity and the majority of the
host railroads are Class I railroads or State Departments of
Transportation, none of which are small entities. There are currently
12 host railroads that are small entities, including approximately 8
switching and terminal railroads and 4 short line or regional
railroads.\39\ There are approximately 695 class III railroads on the
general system. Therefore, the 12 small entities potentially affected
by this final rule are not considered a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ FRA received one comment from a Class III terminal railroad
operating on track controlled by another railroad, expressing
concern about being the subject of an STB investigation. However, it
is FRA's understanding that Amtrak does not currently operate over
the right-of-way in question (and although the possibility of future
Amtrak service may exist, such future service would be subject to
the certified schedule metric in this final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Impact on Small Entities
    FRA has determined that the economic impact on small entities will
not be significant. This final rule does not require published train
schedule modifications. However, FRA assumes that, as a result of the
Metrics and Standards, Amtrak will engage with many host railroads to
discuss modifications to the published train schedule to align the
schedules with the customer OTP metric.
    There are currently twelve host railroads that are small entities,
including approximately eight switching and terminal railroads and four
short line and regional railroads. The impact on those small entities
are very minimal. The switching and terminal railroads are not likely
burdened by this final rule because Amtrak only operates over those
routes for short distances and has very few stops along those sections
of track. Those railroads already meet with Amtrak on a periodic basis,
so any discussions regarding their schedule will take place at that
time. It is likely that no schedule adjustments are required along
those routes.
    Amtrak has limited stops along the routes of the four short line
and regional railroads; therefore, published train schedule adjustments
would be brief. Those railroads also already meet with Amtrak on a
periodic basis and discussions regarding schedules can take place at
that time. Such discussions may add a minimal amount of time to those
meetings. However, published train schedule adjustments may not even be
necessary for these railroads.
    Other than the customer OTP metric, the final rule does not provide
an additional burden on Amtrak or the host railroads. Amtrak already
collects the data to support these new metrics; therefore, there is no
additional burden.
Certification
    Consistent with the findings in FRA's initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, the FRA Administrator hereby certifies that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    FRA is publishing a new information collection request in
connection with this final rule in a separate notice. For information
or a copy of the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. Kim
Toone, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
D. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999),
requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency
may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local
governments, or the agency consults with State and local government
officials early in the process of developing the regulation. Where a
regulation has federalism implications and preempts State law, the
agency seeks to consult with State and local officials in the process
of developing the regulation.
    FRA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria
contained in Executive Order 13132. This final rule could affect State
and local governments to the extent that they sponsor, or exercise
oversight of, intercity passenger rail service. Because this final rule
is required by Federal statute, the consultation and funding
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
    In sum, FRA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria in Executive Order 13132. As explained above, FRA has
determined this final rule has no federalism implications. Therefore,
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement for this final
rule is not required.

E. Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this final rule consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other
environmental statutes, related regulatory requirements, and its NEPA
implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 771. Under NEPA, categorical
exclusions (CEs) are actions identified in an agency's NEPA
implementing regulations that do not normally have a significant impact
on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR
1508.4. FRA has determined that this final rule is categorically
excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant to 23 CFR
771.116(c)(15), ``Promulgation of rules,

the issuance of policy statements, the waiver or modification of
existing regulatory requirements, or discretionary approvals that do
not result in significantly increased emissions of air or water
pollutants or noise.''
    In analyzing the applicability of a CE, FRA must also consider
whether unusual circumstances are present that would warrant a more
detailed environmental review through the preparation of an EA or EIS.
See 23 CFR 771.116(b). FRA has concluded that no unusual circumstances
exist with respect to this regulation that would trigger the need for a
more detailed environmental review. The purpose of this rulemaking is
to establish metrics and standards to measure the performance and
service quality of intercity passenger train operations. FRA does not
anticipate any environmental impacts from this final rule and finds
there are no unusual circumstances present in connection with this
final rule.
    A commenter stated that FRA should consider whether the rulemaking
meets the requirements of a categorical exclusion under NEPA given the
operational impacts on the host railroads. As discussed elsewhere in
this final rule, any such operational impacts relate to, and should be
resolved by, the development of new schedules. FRA expects Amtrak and
the host railroads to account for these issues when they develop new
schedules. Therefore, FRA finds that a categorical exclusion is
appropriate here.
    Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking
has no potential to affect historic properties. See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA
has also determined that this rulemaking does not approve a project
resulting in a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f). See
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89-670,
80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.

F. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and DOT
Order 5610.2(a) (91 FR 27534 May 10, 2012) require DOT agencies to
achieve environmental justice as part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social
and economic effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations. The DOT Order
instructs DOT agencies to address compliance with Executive Order 12898
and requirements within the DOT Order in rulemaking activities, as
appropriate. FRA has evaluated this final rule under Executive Order
12898 and the DOT Order and has determined it would not cause
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority populations or low-income populations.

G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FRA has evaluated this final rule under the principles and criteria
in Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments, dated November 6, 2000. The final rule will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding
and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply,
and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other
than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements
specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that before promulgating
any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in
the promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement detailing the
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate,
of $100,000,000 or more (as adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

I. Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to
lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including
notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices
of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action. FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with Executive
Order 13211. FRA has determined that this rule is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Consequently, FRA has determined that this final rule is not a
``significant energy action'' within the meaning of Executive Order
13211.
    Executive Order 13783, ``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic
Growth,'' requires Federal agencies to review regulations to determine
whether they potentially burden the development or use of domestically
produced energy resources, with attention to oil, natural gas, coal,
and nuclear energy resources. 82 FR 16093 (March 31, 2017). Executive
Order 13783 defines ``burden'' to mean unnecessarily obstruct, delay,
curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting,
permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of
energy resources. FRA has determined this final rule will not
potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced
energy resources.

J. Trade Impact

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39, 19 U.S.C. 2501 et
seq.) prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards setting
or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as
safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. FRA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule on

foreign commerce and believes that its requirements are consistent with
the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 273

    Railroads, Transportation.

The Rule

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends chapter II,
subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, by adding part 273
to read as follows:

PART 273--METRICS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER
TRAIN OPERATIONS

Sec.
273.1 Purpose.
273.3 Definitions.
273.5 On-time performance and train delays.
273.7 Customer service.
273.9 Financial.
273.11 Public benefits.

    Authority: Sec. 207, Div. B, Pub. L. 110-432; 49 U.S.C. 24101,
note; 49 U.S.C. 103(j); 49 CFR 1.81; 49 CFR 1.88; and 49 CFR 1.89.

Sec.  273.1  Purpose.

    The purpose of this part is to establish metrics and minimum
standards for measuring the performance and service quality of
intercity passenger train operations.

Sec.  273.3  Definitions.

    As used in this part--
    Actual running time means the actual elapsed travel time of a
train's travel on a host railroad, between the departure time at the
first reporting point for a host railroad segment and the arrival time
at the reporting point at the end of the host railroad segment.
    Adjusted operating expenses means Amtrak's operating expenses
adjusted to exclude certain Amtrak expenses that are not considered
core to operating the business. The major exclusions are depreciation,
capital project related expenditures not eligible for capitalization,
non-cash portion of pension and post-retirement benefits, and Amtrak's
Office of Inspector General expenses. Adjusted operating expenses do
not include any operating expenses for State-supported routes that are
paid for separately by States.
    Adjusted operating revenue means Amtrak's operating revenue
adjusted to exclude certain revenue that is associated with capital
projects. The major exclusions are the amortization of State capital
payments and capital project revenue related to expenses not eligible
for capitalization.
    Amtrak means the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
    Amtrak's customer satisfaction survey means a market-research
survey that measures Amtrak's satisfaction score as measured by
specific service attributes that cover the entire customer journey.
    Amtrak-responsible delays means delays recorded by Amtrak, in
accordance with Amtrak procedures, as Amtrak-responsible delays,
including passenger-related delays at stations, Amtrak equipment
failures, holding for connections, injuries, initial terminal delays,
servicing delays, crew and system delays, and other miscellaneous
Amtrak-responsible delays.
    Avoidable operating costs means costs incurred by Amtrak to operate
train service along a route that would no longer be incurred if the
route were no longer operated.
    Certified schedule means a published train schedule that Amtrak and
the host railroad jointly certify is aligned with the customer on-time
performance metric and standard in Sec.  273.5(a)(1) and (2). If a
published train schedule is reported as a certified schedule under
Sec.  273.5(c)(1), then it cannot later be designated as an uncertified
schedule.
    Disputed schedule means:
    (1) A published train schedule for which a specific change is
sought:
    (i) That is the only subject of a non-binding dispute resolution
process led by a neutral third-party and involving Amtrak and one or
more host railroads;
    (ii) That is the only subject of a non-binding dispute resolution
process led by a neutral third-party that has been initiated by one or
more host railroads and Amtrak has not consented to participate in the
process within 30 calendar days; or
    (iii) That is the only subject of a non-binding dispute resolution
process led by a neutral third-party that has been initiated by Amtrak
and the host railroad has not consented to participate in the process
within 30 calendar days.
    (2) The written decision resulting from a non-binding dispute
resolution process is admissible in Surface Transportation Board
investigations under 49 U.S.C. 24308(f). If a published train schedule
is reported as a disputed schedule under Sec.  273.5(c)(1), then it
remains a disputed schedule until reported as a certified schedule.
    Fully allocated core operating costs means Amtrak's total costs
associated with operating an Amtrak route, including direct operating
expenses, a portion of shared expenses, and a portion of corporate
overhead expenses. Fully allocated core operating costs exclude
ancillary and other expenses that are not directly reimbursed by
passenger revenue to match revenues with expenses.
    Host railroad means a railroad that is directly accountable to
Amtrak by agreement for Amtrak operations over a railroad line segment.
Amtrak is a host railroad of Amtrak trains and other trains operating
over an Amtrak owned or controlled railroad line segment. For purposes
of the certified schedule metric under Sec.  273.5(c), Amtrak is not a
host railroad.
    Host-responsible delays means delays recorded by Amtrak, in
accordance with Amtrak procedures, as host-responsible delays,
including freight train interference, slow orders, signals, routing,
maintenance of way, commuter train interference, passenger train
interference, catenary or wayside power system failure, and detours.
    Not well-served communities means those rural communities: Within
25 miles of an intercity passenger rail station; more than 75 miles
from a large airport; and more than 25 miles from any other airport
with scheduled commercial service or an intercity bus stop.
    Passenger revenue means intercity passenger rail revenue generated
from passenger train operations, including ticket revenue, food and
beverage sales, operating payments collected from States or other
sponsoring entities, special trains, and private car operations.
    Ridership data means, in a machine-readable format: The total
number of passengers, by train and by day; the station-specific number
of detraining passengers, reported by host railroad whose railroad
right-of-way serves the station, by train, and by day; and the station-
specific number of on-time passengers reported by host railroad whose
railroad right-of-way serves the station, by train, and by day.
    Scheduled running time means the scheduled duration of a train's
travel on a host railroad, as set forth in the Amtrak schedule
skeleton.
    Schedule skeleton means a schedule grid used by Amtrak and host
railroads to communicate the public schedule of an Amtrak train and the
schedule of operations of an Amtrak train on host railroads.
    Third party delays means delays recorded by Amtrak, in accordance
with Amtrak procedures, as third party delays, including bridge
strikes, debris strikes, customs, drawbridge openings, police-related
delays, trespassers, vehicle strikes, utility company delays, weather-
related delays (including heat or cold orders, storms, floods/washouts,
earthquake-related delays, slippery rail due to leaves, flash-flood
warnings, wayside defect detector actuations caused by ice, and high-
wind

restrictions), acts of God, or waiting for scheduled departure time.
    Uncertified schedule means a published train schedule that has not
been reported as a certified schedule or a disputed schedule under
Sec.  273.5(c)(1).

Sec.  273.5  On-time performance and train delays.

    (a) Customer on-time performance--(1) Metric. The customer on-time
performance metric is the percentage of all customers on an intercity
passenger rail train who arrive at their detraining point no later than
15 minutes after their published scheduled arrival time, reported by
train and by route.
    (2) Standard. The customer on-time performance minimum standard is
80 percent for any 2 consecutive calendar quarters.
    (3) Application. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of
this section, the customer on-time performance standard shall apply to
a train beginning on the first full calendar quarter after May 17,
2021.
    (ii) If a train schedule is a disputed schedule on or before May
17, 2021, then the customer on-time performance standard for the
disputed schedule shall apply beginning on the second full calendar
quarter after May 17, 2021.
    (b) Ridership data. The ridership data metric is the number of host
railroads to whom Amtrak has provided ridership data consistent with
this paragraph (b), reported by host railroad and by month. Not later
than December 16, 2020, Amtrak must provide host railroad-specific
ridership data to each host railroad for the preceding 24 months. On
the 15th day of every month following December 16, 2020, Amtrak must
provide host railroad-specific ridership data to each host railroad for
the preceding month.
    (c) Certified schedule--(1) Metric. The certified schedule metric
is the number of certified schedules, uncertified schedules, and
disputed schedules, reported by train, by route, and by host railroad
(excluding switching and terminal railroads), identified in a notice to
the Federal Railroad Administrator by Amtrak:
    (i) On December 16, 2020;
    (ii) On January 19, 2021;
    (iii) On February 16, 2021;
    (iv) On March 16, 2021;
    (v) On April 16, 2021;
    (vi) On May 17, 2021;
    (vii) On November 16, 2021; and
    (viii) Every 12 months after November 16, 2021.
    (2) Reporting. If a train schedule is reported as a an uncertified
schedule under paragraph (c)(1)(vi), (vii), or (viii) of this section,
then Amtrak and the host railroad must transmit a joint letter and
status report on the first of each month following the report, signed
by their respective chief executive officers to each U.S. Senator and
U.S. Representative whose district is served by the train, the Chairman
and Ranking Member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Chairman of the
Surface Transportation Board, which states:
    (i) The Amtrak train schedule(s) at issue;
    (ii) The specific components of the train schedule(s) on which
Amtrak and host railroad cannot reach agreement;
    (iii) Amtrak's position regarding the disagreed upon components of
the train schedule(s);
    (iv) Host railroad's position regarding the disagreed upon
components of the train schedule(s); and
    (v) Amtrak and the host railroad's plan and expectation date to
resolve the disagreement(s). The requirement to transmit this joint
letter and status report ends for the train schedule at issue when the
uncertified schedule becomes a certified schedule.
    (3) Ongoing coordination between Amtrak and host railroads. When
conditions have changed that impact a certified schedule, Amtrak or a
host railroad may seek to modify the certified schedule. The customer
on-time performance standard in paragraph (a)(2) of this section
remains in effect for the existing certified schedule, until a modified
schedule is jointly certified.
    (d) Train delays. The train delays metric is the minutes of delay
for all Amtrak-responsible delays, host-responsible delays, and third
party delays, for the host railroad territory within each route. The
train delays metric is reported by delay code by: total minutes of
delay; Amtrak-responsible delays; Amtrak's host-responsible delays;
Amtrak's host responsible delays and Amtrak-responsible delays,
combined; non-Amtrak host-responsible delays; and third party delays.
The train delays metric is also reported by the number of non-Amtrak
host-responsible delay minutes disputed by host railroad and not
resolved by Amtrak.
    (e) Train delays per 10,000 train miles. The train delays per
10,000 train miles metric is the minutes of delay per 10,000 train
miles for all Amtrak-responsible and host-responsible delays, for the
host railroad territory within each route.
    (f) Station performance. The station performance metric is the
number of detraining passengers, the number of late passengers, and the
average minutes late that late customers arrive at their detraining
stations, reported by route, by train, and by station. The average
minutes late per late customer calculation excludes on-time customers
that arrive no later than 15 minutes after their scheduled time.
    (g) Host running time. The host running time metric is the average
actual running time and the median actual running time compared with
the scheduled running time between the first and final reporting points
for a host railroad set forth in the Amtrak schedule skeleton, reported
by route, by train, and by host railroad (excluding switching and
terminal railroads).

Sec.  273.7  Customer service.

    (a) Customer satisfaction. The customer satisfaction metric is the
percent of respondents to the Amtrak customer satisfaction survey who
provided a score of 70 percent or greater for their ``overall
satisfaction'' on a 100 point scale for their most recent trip, by
route, shown both adjusted for performance and unadjusted.
    (b) Amtrak personnel. The Amtrak personnel metric is the average
score from respondents to the Amtrak customer satisfaction survey for
their overall review of Amtrak personnel on their most recent trip, by
route.
    (c) Information given. The information given metric is the average
score from respondents to the Amtrak customer satisfaction survey for
their overall review of information provided by Amtrak on their most
recent trip, by route.
    (d) On-board comfort. The on-board comfort metric is the average
score from respondents to the Amtrak customer satisfaction survey for
their overall review of on-board comfort on their most recent trip, by
route.
    (e) On-board cleanliness. The on-board cleanliness metric is the
average score from respondents to the Amtrak customer satisfaction
survey for their overall review of on-board cleanliness on their most
recent trip, by route.
    (f) On-board food service. The on-board food service metric is the
average score from respondents to the Amtrak customer satisfaction
survey for their overall review of on-board food service on their most
recent trip, by route.

Sec.  273.9  Financial.

    (a) Cost recovery. The cost recovery metric is Amtrak's adjusted
operating revenue divided by Amtrak's adjusted operating expense. This
metric is reported at the corporate level/system-wide and for each
route and is reported in constant dollars of the reporting year based
on the Office of Management and Budget's gross domestic product chain
deflator.
    (b) Avoidable operating costs covered by passenger revenue. The
avoidable operating costs covered by passenger revenue metric is the
percent of avoidable operating costs divided by passenger revenue for
each route, shown with and without State operating payments.
    (c) Fully allocated core operating costs covered by passenger
revenue. The fully allocated core operating costs covered by passenger
revenue metric is the percent of fully allocated core operating costs
divided by passenger revenue for each route, shown with and without
State operating payments.
    (d) Average ridership. The average ridership metric is the number
of passenger-miles divided by train-mile for each route.
    (e) Total ridership. The total ridership metric is the total number
of passengers on Amtrak trains, reported by route.

Sec.  273.11  Public benefits.

    (a) Connectivity. The connectivity metric is the percent of
passengers connecting to and from other Amtrak routes, updated on an
annual basis.
    (b) Missed connections. The missed connections metric is the
percent of passengers connecting to/from other Amtrak routes who missed
connections due to a late arrival from another Amtrak train, reported
by route and updated on an annual basis.
    (c) Community access. The community access metric is the percent of
Amtrak passenger-trips to and from not well-served communities, updated
on an annual basis.
    (d) Service availability. The service availability metric is the
total number of daily Amtrak trains per 100,000 residents in a
metropolitan statistical area (MSA) for each of the top 100 MSAs in the
United States, shown in total and adjusted for time of day, updated on
an annual basis.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Gerald A. Reynolds,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-25212 Filed 11-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1574-1575]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00099]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0027-N-39]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

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

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice
announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Request
(ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and comment. The ICR describes the information collection and
its expected burden. On October 5, 2020, FRA published a notice
providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
February 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular ICR by
selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments''
or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>2) or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On October 5, 2020, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICR for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 85 FR 62798. FRA
received no comments in response to this 60-day notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve the proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.10(b); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB
within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Design and Evaluation of a Robust Manual Locomotive
Operating Mode.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0623.
    Abstract: The purpose of this study is to design and evaluate a
prototype locomotive operating mode that allows an engineer to
``manually'' control a train by providing a desired speed target while
the control system determines the throttle notch changes required. This
research addresses DOT's safety strategic goal. Information collected
from this research will be used by researchers and equipment designers
to evaluate the merit of a prototype display and control configuration
maximizing the use of both automation and human capabilities. The
information will also assist the Federal government in recommending
display design standards to the rail industry for future displays and
the results may help design future displays and controls for
locomotives. The ICR, which was previously approved by OMB, will be
extended as the study was not completed by the anticipated completion
date.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a current information
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroad Engineers, College Student Volunteers.
    Respondent Universe: 20 Engineers/10 Volunteers.
    Frequency of Submission: Once.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 90.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 272.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

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

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2021-00099 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: January 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 6)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1556-1558]
[DOCID:fr09ja08-14]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0390; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-260-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Several cases of cracks on the main landing gear (MLG) door
hinge fitting and MLG door actuator fitting on the keel beam were
reported.

    Such failure could lead to the loss [of] the MLG door and could
cause damage to the aircraft and/or hazard to persons or property on
the ground.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 8,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0390;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-260-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0161, dated June 11, 2007 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Several cases of cracks on the main landing gear (MLG) door
hinge fitting and MLG door actuator fitting on the keel beam were
reported.

    Such failure could lead to the loss [of] the MLG door and could
cause damage to the aircraft and/or hazard to persons or property on
the ground.

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates a onetime detailed
visual inspection (DVI) and special detailed inspection (SDI) of the
MLG door hinge fitting and actuator fitting.

The inspections are for cracking, damage, correct installation, and
correct adjustment. The corrective actions include correcting incorrect
adjustments and installations, and contacting Airbus for instructions
to repair damage and cracking. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A320-53-1195, Revision 02,
dated April 5, 2007, and A320-53-1196, Revision 01, dated November 29,
2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information

provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 641 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 28 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $1,435,840, or $2,240 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2007-0390; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
260-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by February 8, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321
series airplanes, all certified models, certificated in any
category, all serial numbers up to manufacturer's serial number
(MSN) 2850 inclusive, except MSNs 0115, 0184, 0782, 1151, 1190,
2650, 2675, 2706, 2801, and 2837.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Several cases of cracks on the main landing gear (MLG) door
hinge fitting and MLG door actuator fitting on the keel beam were
reported.

    Such failure could lead to the loss [of] the MLG door and could
cause damage to the aircraft and/or hazard to persons or property on
the ground.

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates a onetime detailed
visual inspection (DVI) and special detailed inspection (SDI) of the
MLG door hinge fitting and actuator fitting.

    The inspections are for cracking, damage, correct installation,
and correct adjustment. The corrective actions include correcting
incorrect adjustments and installations, and contacting Airbus for
instructions to repair damage and cracking.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the latest of the times specified in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), and (f)(1)(iii) of this AD, perform detailed
visual, high frequency eddy current (HFEC), and ultrasonic
inspections (for cracking, damage, correct installation, and correct
adjustment, as applicable) of the left hand (LH) and right hand (RH)
MLG door actuator fitting on the keel beam, and do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight. Where the service bulletin
specifies the applicable corrective action is contacting Airbus,
contact Airbus for repair instructions and repair before further
flight. Do all actions required by this paragraph in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-
1195, Revision 02, dated April 5, 2007.
    (i) Within 6,000 flight cycles since first flight.
    (ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD.
    (iii) Within 6,000 flight cycles from the latest MLG door
actuator fitting replacement.
    (2) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)
and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, perform detailed visual and HFEC
inspections (for cracking, damage, correct installation, and correct
adjustment, as applicable) of the LH and RH MLG door hinge fitting
on the keel beam, and do all applicable corrective actions before
further flight. Where the service bulletin specifies the applicable
corrective action is contacting Airbus, contact Airbus for repair
instructions and repair before further flight. Do all actions
required by this paragraph in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 01,
dated November 29, 2006.
    (i) Within 4,500 flight cycles since first flight.
    (ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD.
    (3) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the applicable service bulletins listed in
paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(ii), and (f)(3)(iii) of this AD are
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by
this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, dated June 23, 2006.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 01, dated
November 29, 2006.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, dated June 23, 2006.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-116, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim
Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0161, dated June 11, 2007, Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 02, dated April 5, 2007, and
Airbus Service Bulletin A-320-53-1196, Revision 01, dated November
29, 2006, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 19, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-164 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 5822]
[DOCID:fr03fe06-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-383-073]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

January 26, 2006.
    Take notice that on January 23, 2006, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI) submitted a compliance filing to the Commission's letter order
issued January 13, 2006, in Docket No. RP96-383-071.
    DTI states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the
official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1447 Filed 2-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Date:
May 3, 2022
To:
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747
From:
Angie Carey, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD
Subject:
Meeting Record for October 13, 2021, meeting between Representatives of ACA and Representatives of OAQPS (U.S. EPA)

      On October 13, 2021, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participated in a phone meeting with representatives of the American Coatings Association (ACA). The names and affiliations of the participants are included in Attachment 1. The purpose of the call was to discuss the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM): National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) technology review proposal. The meeting was to clarify questions regarding the proposal.

                                 Attachment 1
Participants in October 13, 2021 EPA/ACA Meeting

ACA Representatives
David Darling
Michael Corcoran (PPG)
Drew Howard (Parker)
Edward Bochenek (Sherwin Williams)
Jeff Metzger (3M)
Jeff Lee (Davis Paint)
Marty Gudmundson (Polynt)
Noel Pacheco (PPG)
Peter Saxton (Henkel)
Sharon Levkus (Parker)
Scott Porterfield (Sheboygan Paint)
Steven Travis (Sherwin Williams)
Todd Thomas (Altana)

U.S. EPA Representatives
Angie Carey
Brenda Shine


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40612]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17292]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 510

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0003]

New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor's Name and Address

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor's name from Alpharma,
LLC, to Alpharma, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc. The
sponsor's mailing address will also be changed.

DATES: This rule is effective July 11, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven D. Vaughn, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7520
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Alpharma, LLC, 400 Crossing Blvd.,
Bridgewater, NJ 08807 has informed FDA of a change of name and mailing
address to Alpharma, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc.,
235 East 42d St., New York, NY 10017. Accordingly, the Agency is
amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c) to reflect these changes.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 510 is
amended as follows:

PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.

0
2. In Sec.  510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1), revise the entry
for ``Alpharma LLC''; and in the table in paragraph (c)(2), revise the
entry for ``046573'' to read as follows:

Sec.  510.600  Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of
approved applications.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Drug labeler
                  Firm name and address                        code
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Alpharma, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer,               046573
 Inc., 235 East 42d St., New York, NY 10017.............

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Drug labeler code                  Firm name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
046573....................................  Alpharma, LLC, a wholly
                                             owned subsidiary of Pfizer,
                                             Inc., 235 East 42d St., New
                                             York, NY 10017

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: July 1, 2011.
Elizabeth Rettie,
Deputy Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for
Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2011-17292 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2292-2294]
[DOCID:fr14ja08-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57110; File No. SR-Amex-2007-141]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change To Expand, and Make Permanent, the $1 Strike Price Program

January 8, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 21, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``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 substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons and to grant
accelerated approval to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

    The Exchange proposes to expand, and make permanent, the $1 Strike
Price Program (the ``Program''). The text of the proposed rule change
is available at Amex, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.amex.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The current Program \3\ permits the Exchange to select a total of
five (5) individual stocks on which options series may be listed at $1
strike price intervals. To be eligible for the Program, an underlying
stock must close below $20 in its primary market on the previous
trading day. If selected, the Exchange may list strike prices at $1
intervals from $3 to $20; however, a $1 strike price may not be listed
that is greater than $5 from the underlying stock's closing price in
the primary market on the previous day. The Exchange may also list $1
strikes on any other option class designated by another options
exchange that employs a similar Program approved by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission approved the Program on June 12, 2003. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48024 (June 12, 2003), 68 FR
36617 (June 18, 2003) (SR-Amex-2003-36). The Commission subsequently
approved, through June 5, 2008, four (4) one-year extensions of the
Program. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49813 (June 4,
2004), 69 FR 33088 (June 14, 2004) (SR-Amex-2004-45) (extending the
Program through June 5, 2005); 51770 (May 31, 2005), 70 FR 33226
(June 7, 2005) (SR-Amex-2005-040) (extending the Program through
June 5, 2006); 53843 (May 19, 2006), 71 FR 30455 (May 26, 2006) (SR-
Amex-2006-49) (extending the Program through June 5, 2007); and
55714 (May 7, 2007), 72 FR 26853 (May 11, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-43)
(extending the Program through June 5, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Program prohibits the Exchange from listing $1 strikes on any
series of individual equity option classes that have greater than nine
(9) months until expiration. In addition, the Exchange is also
restricted from listing any series that would result in strike prices
being $0.50 apart.
    The Exchange proposes to expand the Program to permit Amex to
select a total of ten (10) individual stocks on which option series may
be listed at $1 strike price intervals. The Exchange also proposes to
expand the strike price range on which it may list $1 strikes. The
proposed new strike price range will be $3-$50. The existing
restrictions on listing strike prices will remain the same as before:
(1) No strike price may be listed that is greater than $5 from the
underlying stock's closing price in its primary market on the previous
trading day; and (2) the Exchange is restricted from listing any series
that would result in strike prices being more than $0.50 apart.
    The Exchange believes that one point strike price intervals in
selected equity options provide investors with more flexibility in the
trading of equity options that overlie lower priced stocks by allowing
investors to establish equity options positions that are better
tailored to meet their investment objectives.\4\ To date, the Exchange
believes that the Program has been beneficial to investors and the
options market by providing investors with greater flexibility in the
trading of equity options that overlie stocks trading below $20. The
Exchange represents that there has been a demand by member firms for
the expansion of the Program, both in terms of the number of classes
which can be selected and the range in which $1 strikes may be listed.
The Exchange believes that by increasing the number of stocks subject
to the $1 strike price intervals to ten (10) and increasing the strike
price range ceiling to $50, up from $20, investors will enjoy even
greater flexibility in achieving their investment objectives through
various strategies. Because the Program has been very successful, the
Exchange requests that the Program be approved on a permanent basis.
The Exchange believes that permanent approval, along with the proposed
expansion, is reasonable and consistent with the intent of the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48024 (June 12,
2003), 68 FR 36617 (June 18, 2003) (SR-Amex-2003-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact on systems capacities, the Exchange
represents that the overall impact on capacity is still minimal and
that it has sufficient capacity to handle an expansion of the Program,
as proposed.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will impose no
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange states that no written comments were solicited or
received with respect to the proposed rule change.

III. 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2007-141 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-141. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File

Number SR-Amex-2007-141 and should be submitted on or before February
4, 2008.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed expansion
to permit the Exchange to select a total of 10 individual underlying
stocks trading at less than $50 on which option series may be listed at
$1 strike price intervals, and the request to make the Program
permanent, should provide investors with added flexibility in the
trading of equity options and further the public interest by allowing
investors to establish equity options positions that are better
tailored to meet their investment objectives. The Commission also
believes that the proposal strikes a reasonable balance between the
Exchange's desire to accommodate market participants by offering a
wider array of investment opportunities and the need to avoid
unnecessary proliferation of options series and the corresponding
increase in quotes. The Commission notes that the existing restrictions
on listing $1 strike price intervals will continue to apply, e.g., no
$1 strike price may be listed (a) that is greater than $5 from the
underlying stock's closing price in its primary market on the previous
day, or (b) that would result in strike prices being $0.50 apart.
    The Commission expects the Exchange to continue to monitor for
options with little or no open interest and trading activity and to act
promptly to delist such options. In addition, the Commission expects
that Amex will continue to monitor the trading volume associated with
the additional options series listed as a result of this proposal and
the effect of these additional series on market fragmentation and on
the capacity of the Exchange's, OPRA's, and vendors' automated systems.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change before the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of
filing thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission has recently
approved a substantially similar proposal submitted by the Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, which was published for notice
and comment.\9\ Accelerating approval of this proposal will allow Amex
the same flexibility with respect to the listing of $1 strikes,
creating additional competition in the market for options listed and
traded under the Program.\10\ Therefore, the Commission finds good
cause, consistent with section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\11\ to approve the
proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57049 (December 27,
2007), 73 FR 528 (January 3, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-125).
    \10\ Telephone conversation between Andrea Williams, Assistant
General Counsel, Amex, and Edward Cho, Special Counsel, Division of
Trading and Markets, Commission, dated January 4, 2008.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2007-141) be, and it
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-390 Filed 1-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11562-11563]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03676]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1215; Special Conditions No. 25-12-482-SC]

Special Conditions: Embraer S.A., Model EMB-550 Airplanes; Flight
Envelope Protection: High Speed Limiting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A. Model
EMB-550 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design
feature, specifically an electronic flight control system which
contains fly-by-wire control laws, including envelope protections, for
the overspeed protection and roll limiting function. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the

additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective date: March 21, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for
their new Model EMB-550 airplane. The Model EMB-550 airplane is the
first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight,
fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The aircraft has a
conventional configuration with a low wing and T-tail empennage. The
primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control
surfaces. The Model EMB-550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with
a maximum of 12 passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell HTF7500-E
medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons.
Each engine produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal
takeoff. The primary flight controls consist of hydraulically powered
fly-by-wire elevators, aileron and rudder, controlled by the pilot or
copilot sidestick.
    The longitudinal control law design of the Embraer S.A. Model EMB-
550 airplane incorporates an overspeed protection system in the normal
mode. This mode prevents the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally
exceeding a speed approximately equivalent to VFC or
attaining VDF. Current Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 25 did not envision a high speed limiter that might
preclude or modify flying qualities assessments in the overspeed
region.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that
the Model EMB-550 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25,
as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-127 thereto.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB-550 airplane because of
a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model EMB-550 airplane must comply with the fuel vent
and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model EMB-550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design feature: an electronic flight control system which
contains fly-by-wire control laws, including envelope protections, for
the overspeed protection and roll limiting function. Current part 25
requirements do not contain appropriate standards for high speed
protection systems.

Discussion

    As further discussed previously, a special condition is necessary
in addition to the requirements of Sec.  25.143 for the operation of
the high speed protection. The general intent is that the overspeed
protection does not impede normal maneuvering and speed control and
that the overspeed protection does not restrict or prevent emergency
maneuvering. Therefore, these special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-12-12-SC for the
Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplanes was published in the Federal
Register on November 20, 2012 (77 FR 69572). No comments were received,
and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model EMB-550 airplane. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplanes.
    1. In addition to Sec.  25.143, the following requirement applies:
Operation of the high speed limiter during all routine and descent
procedure flight must not impede normal attainment of speeds up to
overspeed warning.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 12, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-03676 Filed 2-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P