[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28825-28826]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11663]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC13-12-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-577); Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 USC 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information
collection FERC-577, Natural Gas Facilities: Environmental Review and
Compliance, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of
the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file
comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments
to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in
the Federal Register (78 FR 13657, 2/28/2013) requesting public
comments. FERC received no comments on the FERC-577 and is making this
notation in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by June 17,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0128, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC13-12-000, by
either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Natural Gas Facilities: Environmental Review and Compliance.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0128.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-577 information
collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.
    Abstract: Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) \1\ requires that all Federal agencies must include
in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and
other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment, a detailed statement on: the environmental impact on
the proposed actions; any adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be implemented; alternatives to the
proposed action; the relationship between local short-term uses of
man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term
productivity; and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be
implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 91-190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to comply with NEPA, the Commission requires applicants
seeking authorization for the construction and abandonment of
facilities to provide specific environmental information during the
pre-filing process (18 CFR 157.21) and to provide a detailed
environmental report with their application (18 CFR 380.12) that
describes the impact the project is likely to have and the measures the
applicant will implement to mitigate those impacts.
    Type of Respondents: The respondents include all jurisdictional
natural gas companies seeking authorization from the Commission to
construct or abandon facilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: 2 The Commission estimates the total
Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

                                          FERC-577: Natural Gas Facilities: Environmental Review and Compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Number of
                                                           Number of         responses per      Total number of     Average burden      Estimated total
                                                          respondents         respondent           responses      hours per response     annual burden
                                                                    (A)                 (B)           (A)x(B)=(C)               (D)                   (C) x (D)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Gas Pipelines...............................                 92                  16               1,472                 193            284, 096
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is
$19,886,720 [284,096 hours $70/hour \3\ = $19,886,720]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Average salary (per hour) plus benefits per full-time
equivalent employee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: May 9, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11663 Filed 5-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1503-1504]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-120-000]

Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

January 3, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 22, 2006, Stingray Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (Stingray) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become
effective January 21, 2007:

Tenth Revised Sheet No. 2
Original Sheet No. 205
Original Sheet No. 206
Original Sheet No. 207
Original Sheet No. 208
Sheet Nos. 209-299 (reserved for future use)

    Stingray states it is filing these tariff sheets to reflect
currently effective service and discount rate agreements which do not
conform with its current form of service agreement. Stingray requests
that the Commission accept these non-conforming agreements for filing
and grant any and all waivers necessary to allow these agreements to be
effective as of their respective effective dates and to remain in
effect in accordance with their respective terms.
    Stingray states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all
affected customers of Stingray and any interested State commissions.
However, due to the voluminous nature of this filing, Stingray is not
providing copies of the appendices or filed agreements or red-lines of
such agreements as part of each service copy. Stingray states that it
will provide copies of such appendices and agreements to any affected
customer or interested State commission who requests such copies.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of

intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions 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 or intervention 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. E7-272 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 220 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64366-64367]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25167]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928

[Docket No. OSHA-2021-007]

COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard;
Ratification of Department's Actions

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of
Labor (DOL).

ACTION: Ratification.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor is publishing notification of the
Secretary of Labor's ratification of a rule.

DATES: The ratification was signed on November 12, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General information and press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger,
OSHA Office of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone
(202) 693-1999; email: [email protected].
    For technical inquiries: Contact Andrew Levinson, OSHA Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202)
693-1950; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 12, 2021, the Secretary of Labor
ratified an interim final rule codifying an emergency temporary
standard to protect unvaccinated employees of large employers from the
risk of contracting COVID-19. See Interim Final Rule, COVID-19
Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard, 86 FR 61402
(November 5, 2021) (the ``Interim Final Rule''). The Department is now
publishing the ratification in the Federal Register out of an abundance
of caution. Neither the ratification nor the publication is a statement
that the ratified action would be invalid absent the ratification,
whether published or otherwise.

Appendix

Ratification

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of Labor by
law, including 33 U.S.C. 941 and 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657, I am
affirming and ratifying a prior action by Acting Assistant Secretary
James S. Frederick. On November 5, 2021, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration published in the Federal Register an interim
final rule codifying an emergency temporary standard to protect
unvaccinated employees of large employers from the risk of
contracting COVID-19. See Interim Final Rule, COVID-19 Vaccination
and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard, 86 FR 61402 (November 5,
2021) (the ``Interim Final Rule'').
    The Interim Final Rule was signed by James S. Frederick,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, who was serving as Acting Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health before the current
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health
assumed office. Questions have been raised in litigation, however,
concerning Mr. Frederick's authority to sign the interim final rule.
    Out of an abundance of caution, to avoid any doubt as to its
validity, I have independently evaluated the Interim Final Rule and
the basis for adopting it. I now affirm and ratify the Interim Final
Rule, without deference to Mr. Frederick's prior decision. In my
considered and independent judgment, the Interim Final Rule was and
remains necessary to protect unvaccinated employees against the
grave danger of exposure to the virus that causes COVID-19.
    I have full and complete knowledge of the Interim Final Rule
action taken by former Acting Assistant Secretary Frederick. I have
also determined that the assessment of grave danger in the Interim
Final Rule and the Rule's assessment of how best to respond to that
danger remain valid based on my assessment of the situation at the
time of this ratification. Pursuant to my authority as the Secretary
of Labor, and based on my independent review of the action and the
reasons for taking it, I hereby affirm and ratify the Interim Final
Rule, as of October 26, 2021.

Martin J. Walsh,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2021-25167 Filed 11-15-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4510-HL-P


[Federal Register: January 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 772-773]
[DOCID:fr08ja07-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-49-000]

Starks Gas Storage L.L.C.; Notice of Petition

December 27, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 22, 2006, Starks Gas Storage L.L.C.
(Starks), Bankers Hall-East Tower 1200, 855-2nd Street SW., Calgary,
Alberta, Canada T2P 4Z5, filed with the Commission in Docket No. CP07-
49-000 a petition for exemption from certificate requirements for
temporary acts and operations and request for expedited action,
pursuant to Section 7(c)(1)(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as
amended, and Rule 207(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure. Starks seeks approval of an exemption from the certificate
requirements in order to perform temporary activities related to the
development and construction of the certificated Starks Gas Storage
project in Calcasieu and Beauregard Parishes, Louisiana, as more fully
set forth in the petition which is open to the public for inspection.
This filing may be also viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using

the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERCOnline Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the petition should be directed to counsel
for Starks, Douglas F. John, John & Hengerer, 1200 17th Street, NW.,
Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party

to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing
comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests
only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Comment Date: January 8, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-22666 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11002-11004]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03652]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0030]

IAPMO Ventures, LLC dba IAPMO EGS: Application for Expansion of
Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of IAPMO
Ventures, LLC dba IAPMO EGS for expansion of recognition as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the
agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before March 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted as follows:
    Electronically: You may submit comments, including attachments,

electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    OSHA will place comments and requests for a hearing, including
personal information, in the public docket, which will be available
online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting
personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through this website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2013-0030). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before March 10, 2021 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, OSHA Office of Technical Programs and Coordination
Activities, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management,
U.S. Department of Labor, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    OSHA is providing notice that IAPMO Ventures, LLC dba IAPMO EGS
(IAPMO) is applying for an expansion of current recognition as a NRTL.
IAPMO requests the addition of six test standards to the NRTL scope of
recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition
and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides a preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides the final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including IAPMO, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    IAPMO currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification, with the headquarters located at:
IAPMO Ventures, LLC dba IAPMO EGS, 5001 East Philadelphia Street,
Ontario, California 91761. A complete list of IAPMO's scope of
recognition is available at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/iapmo.html.

II. General Background on the Application

    IAPMO submitted two applications to OSHA to expand their NRTL
recognition. The first application to add one standard to the NRTL
scope of recognition was received on September 29, 2019 (OSHA-2010-
0030-0014), and this application was amended on November 25, 2020
(OSHA-2010-0030-0015), to add five additional standards. The
applications would add six additional test standards to the NRTL scope
of recognition. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the
application packets and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did
not perform any on-site reviews in relation to these applications.
    Table 1 lists the appropriate test standards found in IAPMO's
application for expansion for testing and certification of products
under the NRTL Program.

  Table 1--Proposed List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in
                    IAPMO's NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 197...............................  Standard for Commercial Electric
                                        Cooking Appliances.
UL 962...............................  Standard for Household and
                                        Commercial Furnishings.
UL 676...............................  Standard for Underwater
                                        Luminaires and Submersible
                                        Junction Boxes.
UL 73................................  Standard for Safety Motor-
                                        Operated Appliances.
UL 763...............................  Standard for Commercial Safety
                                        for Motor-Operated Commercial
                                        Food Preparing Machines.
UL 399...............................  Drinking Water Coolers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Findings on the Application

    IAPMO submitted acceptable applications for expansion of the scope
of recognition. OSHA's review of the application files, and pertinent
documentation, indicate that IAPMO can meet the requirements prescribed
by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding the recognition to include the addition
of the six test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed
above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or
temporary approval of IAPMO's applications.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether IAPMO meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of the recognition as a
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit
the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request
is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits
identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket,
contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. These materials also are
available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-
2010-0030.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant IAPMO's application for
expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will
make the final decision on granting the application. In making this
decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings
prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
Federal Register.

IV. Authority and Signature

    Amanda L. Edens, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Section 29 U.S.C. 655(6)(d),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020),
and 29 CFR 1905.11.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 11, 2021.
Amanda L. Edens,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-03652 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 11)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2895-2902]
[DOCID:fr16ja09-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 356, 365, and 374

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0235]
RIN 2126-AB16

Elimination of Route Designation Requirement for Motor Carriers
Transporting Passengers Over Regular Routes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA discontinues the administrative requirement that
applicants seeking for-hire authority to transport passengers over
regular routes submit a detailed description and a map of the route(s)
over which they propose to operate. The Agency will register such
carriers as regular-route carriers without requiring the designation of
specific regular routes and fixed end-points. Once motor carriers have
obtained regular-route, for-hire operating authority from FMCSA, they
will no longer need to seek additional FMCSA approval in order to
change or add routes. Each registered regular-route motor carrier of
passengers will continue to be subject to the full safety oversight and
enforcement programs of FMCSA and its State and local partners.

DATES: This rule is effective March 17, 2009. The compliance date for
this rule is July 15, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Miller, Regulatory
Development Division,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Description of the Rulemaking

    FMCSA is discontinuing the administrative requirement that motor
carriers must describe specific routes and provide maps of these routes
when seeking authority to provide regular-route, for-hire
transportation of passengers in interstate commerce. Except for
carriers who are public recipients of governmental assistance, regular-
route passenger carriers will be issued motor carrier certificates of
registration that are not route specific.
    Designation of regular routes in motor carrier operating authority
is not currently required by statute and administratively discontinuing
this requirement will streamline the registration process by
eliminating the need for motor carriers to file new applications when
seeking to change or expand their routes. It will also benefit new
entrants by simplifying the OP-1(P) application for operating
authority. Designation of regular routes is an administrative
requirement associated with the economic regulation of the passenger
carrier industry. With the elimination of certain economic regulations
beginning in 1980, the Agency believes continuing the practice of
approving applications for changing and adding routes is unnecessary
and offers no additional safety benefits to the public or the
commercial passenger carrier community.
    However, the Agency will continue to require public recipients of
governmental assistance to designate specific routes when applying for
regular-route authority because 49 U.S.C. 13902(b)(2)(B) permits
persons to challenge specific regular-route transportation service
provided by public entities on the ground that authorizing such service
is not consistent with the public interest. Eliminating the route
designation requirement in these circumstances would prevent the Agency
from evaluating proposed transportation services under the public
interest standard, in violation of its statutory mandate.
    This final rule amends several FMCSA regulations that reference
authorized routes or points of service in order to make them consistent
with the Agency's discontinuation of the route designation requirement.
The OP-1(P) application form will also be changed to eliminate the
current route-designation and mapping requirements. Because changes to
the OP-1(P) form must be approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and FMCSA plans to seek approval of additional
modifications to the form in response to recent legislative changes
unrelated to route designation requirements, the OMB approval process
is expected to take several months. As a result, FMCSA will not
implement the new procedures until 180 days after publication of this
final rule.

II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (MCA) (Pub. L. 74-255, 49 Stat. 543,
Aug. 9, 1935) authorized the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to
regulate motor carriers by, among other things, issuing certificates of
operating authority to motor carriers of property and passengers
operating in interstate commerce. Section 207(a) of the MCA stated that
``no certificate shall be issued to any common carrier of passengers
for operations over other than a regular route or regular routes, and
between fixed termini [end-points], except as such carriers may be
authorized to engage in special or charter operations.'' Section 208(a)
of the MCA required that certificates issued to regular-route passenger
carriers specify the routes, end-points, and intermediate points to be
served under the certificate. Section 208(b) permitted occasional
deviations from authorized routes, if permitted by ICC regulations.
    These MCA provisions were subsequently recodified without
substantive change as 49 U.S.C. 10922(f)(1)-(3). However, they were
repealed by the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) (Pub. L. 104-88,
109 Stat. 888, Dec. 29, 1995). The statutory registration requirements
specific to passenger carriers are now codified at 49 U.S.C. 13902(b).
Section 103 of the ICCTA retained some of the former registration
requirements of section 10922 applicable to regular-route passenger
carriers but eliminated many others, including 49 U.S.C. 10922(f)(1)-
(3).
    The ICCTA also transferred the ICC's authority to issue for-hire
motor carrier operating authority to the Secretary of Transportation
(Secretary). Section 101 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999 (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1750, Dec. 9, 1999) (MCSIA) created
the FMCSA and directed the Administrator of the FMCSA to carry out the
duties and powers vested in the Secretary by Title 49 United States
Code, Chapters 133 through 149. These powers include the authority of
the Secretary, under 49 U.S.C. 13301(a), to prescribe regulations
governing registration requirements for motor carriers transporting
passengers in interstate commerce for compensation. In addition to the
statutory delegation, the Secretary has administratively delegated this
authority to the FMCSA Administrator under 49 CFR 1.73(a).

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Although the ICCTA no longer required regular-route operating
authority to specify routes and fixed end-points, FMCSA continued to
require applicants seeking such authority to submit maps and a detailed
description of proposed operating route(s) as attachments to the Form
OP-1(P) application. Carriers proposing to add routes to their
operating systems were required to file new applications in order to do
so. Pursuant to Part 365 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), the route descriptions submitted by an applicant were published
in the FMCSA Register and subject to protests by interested parties.
The number of protests received has been very small, an average of one
protest per year between 2003 and 2007.
    On August 7, 2008, FMCSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) (73 FR 45929) requesting public comment on its proposal to
discontinue the route designation requirement and make conforming
changes to its regulations. FMCSA proposed to henceforth issue motor
carrier certificates of registration authorizing service as a regular-
route passenger carrier without designating specific regular routes or
fixed end-points. As a result of this proposal, registered regular-
route passenger carriers would no longer need to submit a new
application to FMCSA in order to add new routes or change existing
routes. The Agency asserted that the paperwork and administrative
burden on both the industry and the Agency would be reduced as a result
of eliminating the need to file and process multiple applications
containing detailed routes.
    FMCSA proposed to modify existing certificates of regular-route
authority to make them consistent with the broader authority that would
be issued to new entrants pursuant to the final rule in this
proceeding. Such certificates would supersede any route-specific
authority issued by FMCSA or its predecessor agencies.
    In order to implement this proposal, FMCSA proposed to amend
various sections of Title 49 CFR to make them consistent with the
Agency's proposed registration procedures. These amendments included:
(1) Removing 49 CFR 356.3, which prescribes the extent to which
passenger carriers may serve points not located on their ``authorized
routes''; (2) modifying 49 CFR 365.101, which identifies the types of
operating authority applications filed with the Agency, to reflect that
the Agency would no longer grant authority to passenger carriers to
operate over specific routes; (3) eliminating references to
``authorized points'' or ``authorized routes'' in 49 CFR 374.303(f) and
374.311(a); and (4) amending 49 CFR 374.311(b) by removing the
requirement that carriers file notices of schedule and route changes
with FMCSA. Regular-route motor passenger carriers would still be
required to post notices of schedule changes in each affected bus and
carrier facility for the convenience of their passengers.
    The basis for the NPRM was FMCSA's belief that the route
designation requirement no longer serves a useful purpose. The
requirement was enacted primarily to protect existing carriers serving
particular routes from competition. Subsequent legislative changes
limited the ability of existing carriers to protest applications based
on economic grounds and there was no measurable nexus between the route
designation requirement and motor carrier safety.
    In the NPRM, FMCSA noted that the proposal would result in uniform
treatment of regular-route motor passenger carriers and passenger
carriers that provide charter and special transportation (as well as
property carriers), who need only file a single application in order to
provide nationwide interstate transportation. Applicants would remain
subject to the applicable statutory fitness standards in 49 U.S.C.
13902(a) and potential safety problems would be addressed through new
entrant safety audits, compliance reviews, or vehicle inspections. The
Agency believed there was no justification for treating regular-route
passenger carriers differently from other carriers to ensure their
compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
    In summary, the Agency concluded that the current route designation
requirement, and the related requirement that existing registered
carriers file new applications when adding or changing routes, had no
discernible safety benefit, yet burdened the industry and the Agency
with unnecessary paperwork.

IV. Discussion of Comments to the NPRM

    FMCSA received eight comments in response to the NPRM. Commenters
included three transportation companies--Greyhound Lines, Inc., Coach
USA, Inc., and Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc; two labor organizations--the
Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transportation Trades
Department, AFL-CIO (TTD); one trade association--the American Bus
Association (ABA); one State regulatory agency--the Missouri Department
of Transportation, Motor Carrier Services Division (MoDOT); and one
public interest advocacy group--the Disability Rights Education and
Defense Fund (DREDF). The commenters opposed the Agency's proposal. The
three primary objections regarding the proposal were: (1) It would
adversely impact motor carrier safety; (2) it would prevent meaningful
implementation of the recently enacted Over-the-Road Bus Transportation
Accessibility Act of 2007; and (3) it would create serious problems in
determining the scope of Federal preemption of State authority to
regulate the intrastate regular-route transportation of passengers.

A. Impact on Motor Carrier Safety

    The six transportation industry-related commenters raised concerns
regarding motor carrier safety issues. Greyhound urged FMCSA to propose
procedures that would enable the Agency to conduct a meaningful
assessment of a passenger carrier's fitness to comply with regulatory
requirements before allowing it to operate or expand its interstate
operations. Greyhound agreed there was little need for route
descriptions under the current system, where applications are rarely
protested and grants of operating authority are virtually automatic.
However, Greyhound believed that if FMCSA decides to ``reinstitute'' a
system where it conducts a thorough investigation of a bus carrier's
fitness prior to granting operating authority, route descriptions would
be essential. According to Greyhound, FMCSA must know the specific
route(s) over which an applicant will operate in order to determine
whether the applicant has a sufficient number of qualified drivers and
vehicles, as well as adequate safety management controls, to operate
safely over these routes. It contended that such an analysis is
mandated by 49 U.S.C. 13902(a)(1), which requires FMCSA to register a
person to provide transportation as a motor carrier only if it finds
the person willing and able to comply with the applicable regulations
and safety fitness requirements. The ABA and other commenters echoed
Greyhound's views.
    Along similar lines, Coach USA believed that the application
process is an important tool in monitoring and enhancing safety
compliance because it provides an additional incentive for existing
carriers to maintain compliance. This incentive would be lost if
carriers are no longer required to file new applications to expand
their

operations. Coach USA also believed that FMCSA will have difficulty
assessing the adequacy of a regular-route carrier's safety program
during a new entrant safety audit or compliance review unless it knows
whether the carrier plans to operate in a large geographic area or a
small one.
    Peter Pan believed that the minimal cost of the route designation
requirement is outweighed by the benefits of continuing existing
procedures, which allow knowledgeable parties to raise safety
compliance concerns by protesting new applications. Peter Pan
interpreted the NPRM as suggesting that the States will oversee safety
compliance issues connected with expanded service, and questioned the
ability of the States to do so adequately. Peter Pan claimed FMCSA has
not offered any meaningful justification for the proposed change.
    ATU and TTD agreed with Greyhound that disclosure of route
designations can play a crucial role in enforcing and ensuring
compliance with safety regulations, since the requirements to operate a
limited route differ from those necessary to run a nationwide network.
ATU believed route designations can also assist inspectors in locating
operators for additional safety audits, inspections and compliance
reviews, while TTD contended that FMCSA must know the routes of cross-
border bus operations to ensure such carriers comply with safety
regulations and do not engage in cabotage.
    FMCSA Response:
    FMCSA acknowledges the commenters' concerns about highway safety.
However, this rulemaking does not affect the applicability of any of
the Agency's safety regulations intended to prevent crashes and save
lives. Neither FMCSA nor its predecessor agencies have considered the
routes over which a passenger carrier proposes to operate when
investigating the carrier's fitness prior to granting operating
authority. The fitness standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 13902(a)(1)
pertains to a carrier's overall willingness and ability to comply with
safety and other applicable regulations, not whether the carrier has
sufficient drivers or equipment to operate over a particular route.
Accordingly, the statute does not mandate a route-specific safety
fitness analysis, as claimed by Greyhound. If Congress had intended to
mandate such an analysis, it presumably would have not eliminated the
statutory requirement that operating authority specify routes and end
points. Moreover, although the commenters contend that scrutiny of
particular routes is important for safety reasons, they do not point to
a single protest filed with FMCSA or its predecessor agencies alleging
that an applicant would be unable to operate safely over a specific
route based on the length or other characteristics of the route.
    While FMCSA recognizes the need to continue to give closer scrutiny
to passenger carrier applications, it has focused its efforts on
carriers that try to reinvent themselves as new entities, after
demonstrating serious safety compliance problems identified through
compliance reviews, new entrant safety audits and vehicle inspections.
The Agency believes its resources are more effectively and efficiently
directed to identifying and taking appropriate action against such
problem carriers rather than scrutinizing the specific routes carriers
propose to serve and speculating about their ability to safely operate
over those routes.
    While the multiple application requirement can theoretically
provide an incentive for existing carriers to maintain compliance, the
very small number of applications that are protested indicates that it
does not serve this purpose in actual practice. Contrary to claims that
operating authority is granted automatically through a computer-driven
system, FMCSA provides public notice of all applications and considers
all legitimate protests.
    While Greyhound claimed, inaccurately, that the Agency's system
ignored a protest and granted an application, that claim does not
reflect what actually happened. In that case--No MC-405969, Fung Wah
Bus Transportation, Inc.--there was a lengthy delay in delivering the
protest to FMCSA. As a result, the Agency did not learn about the
protest until after the authority was issued. The Agency considered the
protest after it was discovered, but rejected it because it raised
issues that the Agency believed at the time it could not lawfully
consider in evaluating the applicant's fitness to receive new operating
authority.
    Regular-route passenger carriers are the only motor carriers
regulated by FMCSA that must file multiple applications to expand their
interstate operations. Passenger carriers providing charter or other
non-regular route services, as well as property carriers, are required
to file only a single application covering all potential operations in
interstate commerce. Safety compliance monitoring for these carriers is
carried out through new entrant safety audits, compliance reviews and
vehicle inspections. These monitoring activities provide ample
incentives to maintain compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations, because problem carriers may be placed out of service for
lack of safety fitness or be assessed civil penalties for regulatory
noncompliance. The commenters have not shown that requiring regular-
route carriers to file new applications when expanding their operations
has any discernible impact on motor carrier safety.
    Contrary to the statement by Peter Pan, FMCSA did not suggest in
the NPRM that States would be responsible for overseeing compliance
issues connected with potential expansion of regular-route service.
Rather, the Agency was soliciting comment on the potential impact of
its proposal on the statutory preemption of State regulation of
intrastate transportation, which is discussed in more detail below.
    Coach USA's comment that FMCSA will have difficulty assessing the
adequacy of a regular-route carrier's safety program during a new
entrant safety audit or compliance review unless it knows the size of
the geographic area in which the carrier plans to operate misconstrues
the nature of these safety assurance processes. New entrant safety
audits and compliance reviews are designed to provide a snapshot of the
carrier's basic safety management controls and regulatory compliance at
the time of the audit or compliance review. During the safety audit or
compliance review, the auditor or investigator can readily determine
the scope of the carrier's existing operations by asking carrier
officials or reviewing the carrier's records. Such reviews are not
intended to speculate about future safety compliance based on potential
future expansion or contraction of a carrier's operations, regardless
of whether the carrier transports passengers or property. For example,
a new property carrier may only operate a small number of trucks at the
time of the new entrant safety audit, but may plan to expand its
service territory and lease or purchase a significant number of
additional vehicles in the future. The safety audit determines the
carrier's compliance based on its existing operations, not future plans
that may never come to fruition. In the event the carrier eventually
follows through on its expansion plans, vehicle inspections would
identify potential safety problems that warrant closer scrutiny of the
carrier through a compliance review. Contrary to ATU's comments, route
designations are not needed to locate carriers for additional safety
audits, inspections and compliance reviews. Safety audits and
compliance reviews are generally conducted at the carrier's principal
place of business and vehicle

inspections are not scheduled to coincide with a carrier's designated
route system.
    Finally, TTD's comment that FMCSA must know the routes of cross-
border bus operations to ensure such carriers comply with safety
regulations and do not engage in cabotage fails to take into account
that FMCSA is not issuing operating authority to regular-route
passenger carriers domiciled in Mexico. If the Agency does so in the
future, there is an extensive safety monitoring system in place, which
includes pre-authorization safety audits, mandated safety inspection
decals and compliance reviews designed to ensure compliance with the
applicable safety regulations (see 49 CFR Part 365, Subpart E, and 49
CFR Part 385, Subpart B).
    Cabotage is generally defined as the prohibited point-to-point
transportation of property or passengers within the United States by
foreign-domiciled motor carriers. Identifying routes in a foreign motor
carrier's operating authority would not ensure that the carrier does
not engage in cabotage. If a carrier were issued broad general regular-
route operating authority in accordance with the final rule, it would
still need to publish schedules listing pickup and drop-off locations
along the route to make the operation financially viable. Such
schedules would be more useful to enforcement officials in identifying
potential cabotage violations than a route described in the carrier's
operating certificate, which would not indicate pickup and drop-off
times and locations.

B. The Over-the-Road Bus Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007

    The Over-the-Road Bus Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007
(OTRB Act), Public Law 110-291, 122 Stat. 2915, became law on July 30,
2008. This legislation was enacted in response to the Fung Wah case
mentioned in the previous section of this preamble. In that case, FMCSA
determined that it lacked statutory authority to consider compliance
with the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility regulations in determining whether
a passenger carrier should be granted interstate operating authority.
The OTRB Act directed FMCSA to determine: (1) An over-the-road bus
(OTRB) company's willingness and ability to comply with DOT's ADA
accessibility requirements in 49 CFR Part 37, Subpart H, before
granting new operating authority to provide interstate passenger
transportation; and (2) an OTRB company's compliance with 49 CFR Part
37, Subpart H, in determining whether to suspend or revoke existing
operating authority. The Act also required DOT and the U.S. Department
of Justice to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding delineating
their respective roles and responsibilities in enforcing the DOT ADA
regulations.
    Most of the commenters expressed concern that the Agency's proposal
would prevent meaningful implementation of the OTRB Act. The commenters
noted that without route designations, FMCSA would be unable to assess
whether an applicant for new operating authority has adequate equipment
and systems to comply with the ADA. Moreover, eliminating the need for
existing carriers to seek new authority before expanding their
operations would eliminate FMCSA's ability to assess ADA compliance
before allowing route expansion. DREDF supported an ABA proposal that
would have FMCSA: (1) Investigate all bus applications that are
protested on ADA grounds and issue a written decision setting forth the
grounds for approval or denial of the application; (2) include ADA
compliance as a pass/fail factor in the new entrant safety audit
because noncompliance with ADA regulations is indicative of breakdowns
in a carrier's management controls; (3) make clear that a bus company's
failure to comply with DOT's ADA regulations is grounds for revocation
of operating authority; and (4) establish procedures for investigating
ADA compliance and determining whether revocation is appropriate.
    FMCSA Response:
    The OTRB Act requires that FMCSA determine compliance with DOT's
ADA accessibility regulations as an additional element to consider in
determining an applicant's fitness to receive new operating authority.
Other statutory fitness criteria include compliance with FMCSA's
commercial and safety regulations, the Agency's safety fitness
standards, and the applicable financial responsibility regulations. In
amending 49 U.S.C. 13902(a), Congress placed compliance with the ADA
regulations on the same footing as compliance with the commercial and
safety regulations. Therefore, the Agency will consider ADA compliance
(as it does with compliance issues regarding the other applicable
regulations) when protesting parties allege that an applicant's failure
to comply with the ADA regulations requires the Agency to withhold new
operating authority, or when the Agency otherwise has reason to believe
the applicant may not be ADA-compliant. The Agency's decision to
withhold operating authority will be based on its evaluation of whether
the applicant is willing and able to prospectively comply with the
regulations and is not intended to be a sanction for past
noncompliance. Accordingly, although past noncompliance with regulatory
requirements is certainly an important factor in evaluating a carrier's
fitness, it does not automatically bar an applicant from receiving new
operating authority.
    This change in the Agency's application procedures will not prevent
meaningful implementation of the OTRB Act. The Act amended 49 U.S.C.
13905 to permit FMCSA to suspend or revoke a carrier's operating
authority based on willful noncompliance with the DOT ADA regulations.
Consequently, it is unnecessary to wait for a carrier to file a new
application before filing a complaint with the Agency requesting
suspension or revocation of the carrier's operating authority. FMCSA
also has the authority to initiate a suspension or revocation
proceeding based on findings of willful noncompliance discovered during
compliance reviews, new entrant safety audits or other means. Unlike
denial of an application for new authority based on ADA noncompliance,
suspension or revocation can be more comprehensive, affecting the
carrier's ability to operate over all of its existing routes, not just
the new routes proposed in the application. Moreover, the Agency is in
the process of implementing the Act's requirement to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Department of Justice
to more effectively coordinate enforcement of DOT's ADA accessibility
regulations.
    DREDF's comment supporting ABA's proposal to include ADA compliance
as a pass/fail factor in the new entrant safety audit raises issues
that are beyond the scope of this rulemaking proceeding, which is
limited to modifying the Agency's regulations to correspond with its
removal of the route-designation requirement.

C. State Preemption Issues

    As was noted in the NPRM, 49 U.S.C. 13902(b)(3) preempts States
from regulating intrastate service provided by interstate regular-route
passenger carriers over interstate routes. If a regular-route passenger
carrier obtains operating authority from FMCSA, a State is prohibited
from requiring the carrier to obtain operating authority to provide
intrastate service on an interstate route operated by the carrier.
Because the preemption is limited to operations over specific routes,
FMCSA requested comment on whether elimination of route designations in
FMCSA operating certificates would make this preemption provision more

difficult to enforce and perhaps result in increased State regulation
of intrastate regular-route transportation.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 14501(a)(1)(A), States are also preempted from
regulating the scheduling of interstate or intrastate transportation
(including discontinuance of or reduction in the level of service) on
an interstate route. FMCSA requested comment on whether elimination of
route designations will affect this preemption provision.
    Greyhound contended that section 13902(b)(3) clearly shows that
Congress intended for Federal operating authority to be issued on a
route-specific basis. It claimed that without specific route
designations, preemption would be impossible to administer because, on
the one hand, States could argue that the lack of a specific route
designation would permit them to license all regular-route intrastate
service within their borders while, on the other hand, interstate
carriers could argue that the broad scope of their interstate authority
prohibits the States from licensing any intrastate service they
provide. Greyhound argued that elimination of route designations would
also encourage States to regulate schedules and rates on all intrastate
bus routes, thus vitiating the section 14501(a)(1)(A) preemption.
    Coach USA pointed out that a route-specific certificate issued by
FMCSA is important evidence of the interstate service provided by the
carrier which makes it easier to preempt States from regulating
intrastate transportation provided over a carrier's designated
interstate routes. Removal of route designations, it claims, would make
it more difficult to administer the statutory preemption.
    MoDOT submitted the lengthiest comment regarding this issue.
Contrary to Greyhound and Coach USA, who indicated that removal of the
route designation requirement could encourage the States to
significantly increase their regulatory presence, MoDOT argued that
FMCSA's proposal would radically expand the Federal preemption of State
and local laws regulating wholly intrastate commerce in excess of the
statutory limits intended by Congress and would unlawfully deregulate
market entry into the intrastate passenger transportation industry.
    MoDOT asserted that elimination of the route designation
requirement would negate any meaningful distinction between regular-
route and irregular-route service since irregular-route service, at
least under Missouri law, includes transportation not restricted to any
specific route or routes within the carrier's authorized service area.
Consequently, MoDOT believed that the FMCSA proposal would effectively
preempt State and local entry regulations with reference to all
intrastate transportation of passengers provided by federally-
authorized motor carriers within any State.
    FMCSA Response:
    We do not agree with Greyhound that section 13902(b)(3) requires
FMCSA regular-route operating authority to be route specific. That
provision authorizes federally-registered carriers to provide regular-
route transportation entirely in one State if such intrastate
transportation is to be provided on a route over which the carrier
provides interstate transportation of passengers. There is no reference
to authorized routes in section 13902(b)(3), as there was in former 49
U.S.C. 10922(d)(2), which authorized the ICC to issue interstate
operating authority that would allow interstate carriers to provide
intrastate transportation on a route over which a carrier has, or will
be granted, Federal authority. The ICCTA, the same statute that
eliminated the route designation requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10922(f)(1)-
(3), also eliminated the authorized route language that appeared in
former section 10922(d)(2). Therefore, an FMCSA-licensed passenger
carrier need only provide interstate transportation of passengers over
a regular route in order to provide intrastate transportation along
that route. There is no requirement that the route be specified in the
motor carrier's FMCSA operating authority certificate in order to
qualify as an interstate route for purposes of implementing section
13902(b)(3).
    FMCSA also disagrees with MoDOT's assertion that elimination of the
route designation requirement effectively eliminates the distinction
between regular-route and irregular-route service. Passenger carriers
will continue to receive operating authority based on the type of
service being provided--regular-route or charter and special
operations. Carriers registered to provide regular-route service are
required by 49 CFR 374.305(c) to provide printed schedules to the
traveling public at all facilities where tickets are sold. Such
schedules must show for each route operated by the carrier: (a) The
points along the route where facilities are located or where the bus
trips originate or terminate; and (b) the arrival or departure time for
each such point. Even without these regulatory requirements, regular-
route carriers would need to provide such schedules out of business
necessity in order to attract ridership along their routes.
    In the absence of route designations in a carrier's operating
certificate, the States can readily obtain copies of schedules from
carriers to determine which routes they are operating over. After
obtaining these schedules, the States would still have to show a lack
of sufficient nexus between intrastate transportation provided over the
route and legitimate interstate service over the route in order to
legally regulate the intrastate transportation. Accordingly, we believe
the most significant difficulties in implementing section 13902(b)(3)
would result from establishing the presence or absence of legitimate
interstate transportation along the route, not the elimination of the
route designation requirement. Based on the comments, the precise
impact of eliminating the route designation requirement on Federal
preemption of State regulation of intrastate regular-route
transportation is still uncertain.
    In conclusion, FMCSA adopts its proposal to discontinue the
requirement that applicants seeking for-hire operating authority to
transport passengers over regular routes submit a detailed description
and a map of the route(s) over which they propose to operate. The
Agency will continue to require public recipients of governmental
assistance to designate specific routes when applying for regular-route
authority because eliminating the route designation requirement in
these circumstances would prevent the Agency from evaluating proposed
transportation services under the public interest standard, in
violation of its statutory mandate.
    In order to implement the Agency's new policy, FMCSA removes 49 CFR
356.3, which prescribes the extent to which passenger carriers may
serve points not located on their ``authorized routes.'' The final rule
also amends: (1) 49 CFR 365.101 to reflect that the Agency will no
longer be granting authority to passenger carriers to operate over
specific routes; (2) 49 CFR 374.303(f) and 374.311(a) by removing
language indicating that the Agency grants authority to operate over
specific routes; and (3) 49 CFR 374.311(b) by removing the requirement
that carriers must file with FMCSA notices of schedule and route
changes. FMCSA will continue to require regular-route motor passenger
carriers to post notices of schedule changes in each affected bus and
carrier facility for the convenience of their passengers.

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review); DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA has determined that this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866. This rule does not have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more and does not adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities. The rule does not create a
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency, does not materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients, and does not raise novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates or the Administration's
priorities. FMCSA prepared a regulatory impact assessment for this rule
as required by Executive Order 12866, but the final rule and the
regulatory impact assessment have not been reviewed by OMB because it
was determined to be not significant under the Executive Order.
    The Agency prepared a regulatory impact assessment for the NPRM,
which evaluated route deregulation options under three industry growth/
change scenarios. Based on these scenarios, FMCSA estimated annual net
benefits to the industry of $36,000 to $44,000 from avoided costs
related to the elimination of the route designation application
requirement. Evaluated over a 10-year period, the estimated net present
value of the industry cost savings ranged from $222,000 to $341,000
based on discount rates of 3 to 7 percent depending on whether one uses
a 3-year average, 5-year average, or 5-year median. No comments were
received disputing these figures.

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub.
L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), requires Federal agencies, as a part of
each rulemaking, to consider regulatory alternatives that minimize the
impact on small entities while achieving the objectives of the
rulemaking. FMCSA evaluated the effects of this proposed rule on small
entities as required by the RFA.
    All new entrant regular-route carriers are affected by the proposed
rulemaking action because all such carriers must file an OP-1(P)
application to obtain regular-route authority. Existing regular-route
carriers are affected only if they seek to expand their routes. New
entrants and existing carriers submitted an average of 92 regular-route
authority applications each year between 2003 and 2005. Currently,
there are 272 active regular route authority carriers. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) Small Business Size Standard for
Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation is no more than $6.5 million in
gross annual revenue. Based on U.S. industry statistics for 2002
provided by the SBA Office of Advocacy, 279 out of 323 firms in the
interurban and rural bus transportation industry (roughly 86 percent)
reported annual receipts of less than $5 million. Additionally,
carriers with annual gross revenues between $5 million and $6.5 million
would also be classified as small businesses, though FMCSA is unable to
quantify the number of carriers within this range. Absent more current
detailed data, the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for
the NPRM assumed that approximately 86 percent of regular route
authority carriers are small entities. Comments received on the NPRM
did not dispute these figures or provide additional data.
    This rule is a deregulatory action implementing a policy change
intended to provide relief to industry. There are no additional costs
specific to these entities as a result of this rulemaking, and the
underlying policy change provides applicants with a cost saving of
approximately $300 for each application. Therefore, FMCSA certifies
this action will have no significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
requires each agency to assess the effects of its regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Any agency
promulgating a final rule likely to result in a Federal mandate
requiring expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $136.1 million or more in any 1
year must prepare a written statement incorporating various
assessments, estimates, and descriptions that are delineated in the
Act. FMCSA determined that this rule would not have an impact of $136.1
million or more in any 1 year.

Environmental Impacts

    The Agency analyzed this rule for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the
Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR
1500-1508), and FMCSA's NEPA Implementation Order 5610.1 published
March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680). This action is categorically excluded under
Appendix 2, paragraph 6.d of the Order (regulations governing
applications for operating authority) from further environmental
documentation. The Agency believes that the action includes no
extraordinary circumstances that would have any effect on the quality
of the environment. Thus, the action does not require an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement.
    FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended
(CAA) section 176(c), (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity
requirement since it involves rulemaking and policy development and
issuance. (See 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2).) It would not result in any
emissions increase nor would it have any potential to result in
emissions that are above the general conformity rule's de minimis
emission threshold levels. Moreover, it is reasonably foreseeable that
the rule would not increase total CMV mileage, how CMVs operate, or the
CMV fleet-mix of motor carriers. This action merely allows passenger
carriers to make changes to their regular routes without FMCSA
approval. Such alterations are routinely approved under current Agency
procedures.

Environmental Justice

    The FMCSA evaluated the environmental effects of this rule in
accordance with Executive Order 12898 and determined that there are no
environmental justice issues associated with its provisions nor any
collective environmental impact resulting from its promulgation.
Environmental justice issues would be raised if there were
``disproportionate'' and ``high and adverse impact'' on minority or
low-income populations. None of the alternatives analyzed in the
Agency's categorical exclusion determination, discussed under National
Environmental Policy Act, would result in high and adverse
environmental impacts.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520), a Federal agency must obtain approval from OMB for each
collection of

information it conducts, sponsors, or requires. This rulemaking would
affect a currently-approved information collection request (ICR)
covered by OMB Control Number 2126-0016, entitled ``Licensing
Applications for Motor Carrier Operating Authority.'' This ICR has an
annual burden of 55,738 burden hours, and will expire on January 31,
2009.
    FMCSA is authorized to register for-hire motor passenger carriers
under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13902. The form used to apply for
operating authority with FMCSA is Form OP-1(P) for motor passenger
carriers. This form requests information on the applicant's identity,
location, familiarity with safety requirements, and type of proposed
operations. The OP-1(P) application form will be changed to eliminate
the current route-designation and mapping requirements. Changes to the
OP-1(P) form must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB); consequently, FMCSA will seek OMB approval of this change, as
well as other modifications to the form in response to recent
legislative changes unrelated to route designation requirements.
    The Agency's discontinuation of its current requirement that motor
carriers seeking authority to transport passengers over regular routes
submit to FMCSA a detailed description and map of the proposed route(s)
for approval would reduce the currently approved ICR annual burden by
180 hours [2 hours to provide description and map of regular routes in
Form OP-1(P) x 90 regular route applications per year = 180 hours]. The
estimated annual burden for this ICR would decrease to 55,558 hours
[55,738 currently approved annual burden hours-180 hours less time to
complete Form OP-1(P) regular route applications = 55,558]. No comments
were received regarding Paperwork Reduction Act issues.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rulemaking meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, entitled ``Civil Justice Reform,'' to
minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 12630, entitled
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.'' We do not anticipate that this action would effect a
taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and FMCSA has determined
that this rulemaking would not warrant the preparation of a Federalism
assessment. We have determined that this proposed action would not
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State government
functions.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211,
entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.'' The Agency has determined that
it is not a significant energy action within the meaning of section
4(b) of the Executive Order and is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FMCSA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, dated
November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose
substantial compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would
not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is
not required.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 356

    Administrative practice and procedure, Routing, Motor carriers.

49 CFR Part 365

    Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Buses, Freight
forwarders, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 374

    Aged, Blind, Buses, Civil rights, Freight, Individuals with
disabilities, Motor carriers, Smoking.

0
For the reasons discussed above, FMCSA amends title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, chapter III, subchapter B, as set forth below:

PART 356--MOTOR CARRIER ROUTING REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 356 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 49 U.S.C. 13301 and 13902; and 49 CFR
1.73.

Sec.  356.3  [Removed and Reserved].

0
2. Remove and reserve Sec.  356.3.

PART 365--RULES GOVERNING APPLICATIONS FOR OPERATING AUTHORITY

0
3. The authority citation for part 365 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 16 U.S.C. 1456; 49 U.S.C.
13101, 13301, 13901-13906, 14708, 31138, and 31144; 49 CFR 1.73.

0
4. Amend Sec.  365.101 by removing and reserving paragraph (f) and
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  365.101  Applications governed by these rules.

* * * * *
    (e) Applications for certificates under 49 U.S.C. 13902(b)(3) to
operate as a motor carrier of passengers in intrastate commerce over
regular routes if such intrastate transportation is to be provided on a
route over which the carrier provides interstate transportation of
passengers.
    (f) [Reserved].
* * * * *

PART 374--PASSENGER CARRIER REGULATIONS

0
5. The authority citation for part 374 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 13301 and 14101; and 49 CFR 1.73.

0
6. Amend Sec.  374.303 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  374.303  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (f) Service means passenger transportation by bus over regular
routes.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  374.311 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  374.311  Service responsibility.

    (a) Schedules. Carriers shall establish schedules that can be
reasonably met, including connections at junction points, to serve
adequately all points.
    (b) Continuity of service. No carrier shall change an existing
regular-route schedule without first displaying

conspicuously a notice in each facility and on each bus affected. Such
notice shall be displayed for a reasonable time before it becomes
effective and shall contain the carrier's name, a description of the
proposed schedule change, the effective date thereof, the reasons for
the change, the availability of alternate service, and the name and
address of the carrier representative passengers may contact.
* * * * *

    Issued on: January 6, 2009.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E9-363 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 220 (Monday, November 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70674-70675]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 95

[Docket No. 31048; Amdt. No. 523]

IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required
IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for
certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a
minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This
regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the
safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument
conditions in the affected areas.

DATES: Effective: 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma
City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK. 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 95 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR
altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a
specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover
points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as
prescribed in part 95.

The Rule

    The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the
prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid
coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of
frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the
need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and
operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to
published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and
provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In
addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this
amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication
date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the
user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those
considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between
these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice
and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable
and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for
making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95

    Airspace Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2015.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015.

PART 95 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.

0
2. Part 95 is amended to read as follows:

              Revisions to IFR Altitudes & Changeover Point
            [Amendment 523 effective date, December 10, 2015]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               From                           To                 MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Sec.   95.6001 Victor Routes-U.S.
    Sec.   95.6014 VOR Federal Airway V14 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIE, PA VORTAC..................  DUNKIRK, NY VORTAC......        #3400
    #ERIE R-064 UNUSABLE, USE
     DUNKIRK R-245
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6043 VOR Federal Airway V43 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIE, PA VORTAC..................  U.S. CANADIAN BORDER....            #
    #UNUSABLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6522 VOR Federal Airway V522 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAILS, OH FIX....................  ERIE, PA VORTAC.........            #
    #UNUSABLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIE, PA VORTAC..................  DUNKIRK, NY VORTAC......        #3400
    #ERIE R-064 UNUSABLE, USE
     DUNKIRK R-245
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    From                                      To                        MEA             MAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Sec.   95.7001 Jet Routes
                               Sec.   95.7513 Jet Route J513 Is Amended To Delete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. CANADIAN BORDER.......................  U.S. CANADIAN BORDER...............          #18000           45000
    #FOR THAT AIRSPACE OVER U.S. TERRITORY
U.S. CANADIAN BORDER.......................  SUDBURY, CA VOR/DME................          #24000           45000
    #FOR THAT AIRSPACE OVER U.S. TERRITORY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Airway segment                                     Changeover
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------     points
                                                                                ----------------      From
                    From                                      To                     Distance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Sec.   95.8003 VOR Federal Airway Changeover Point
                                     V298 Is Amended To Add Changeover Point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEATTLE, WA VORTAC.........................  ELLENSBURG, WA VORTAC                            47        SEATTLE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-28625 Filed 11-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P