[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10775-10776]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03511]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0818; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00987-A;
Amendment 39-21381; AD 2021-01-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Model PC-24 airplanes. This 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 identifies
the unsafe condition as electrical harness installations on PC-24
airplanes that are not in compliance with the approved design. This
unsafe condition could lead to wire chafing and potential arcing or
failure of wires having the incorrect length, possibly resulting in
loss of system redundancy, or generation of smoke and smell, or loss of
power plant fire protection function. This AD requires modifying the
electrical harness installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 30, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 30,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., CH-6371, Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41
exception occurred on : 2021-03511.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-03511.htm
848 24 7 365; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; website:
http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2020-0818.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0818; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
MCAI, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered
Pilatus Model PC-24 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on September 17, 2020 (85 FR 58002). The NPRM was prompted by
MCAI originated by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),
which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European
Union. EASA has issued EASA AD No. 2020-0158, dated July 16, 2020
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to address the unsafe
condition on these products. The MCAI states:

    During production, electrical harness installations on some PC-
24 aeroplanes were found not to comply with the approved design.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to wire chafing and
potential arcing, or to failure of wires having the incorrect
length, possibly resulting in loss of system redundancy, or
generation of smoke and smell, or loss of power plant fire
protection function.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus issued the
[service bulletin] SB, providing instructions to improve the
electrical harness installations in the nose bay, cockpit, fuselage,
wing fairing and rear fuselage areas.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
modification of the electrical harness installations.

    The incorrect length wires are too short in length and do not have
appropriate slack, which could lead to wires being pulled loose from
the terminals during flight or ground operation. Generation of smell
refers to the smell from electrical arcing. You may examine the MCAI in
the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0818.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modifying the electrical
harness installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    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 this State of Design Authority, it has
notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data and determined that air safety and the public interest require
adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted
as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Pilatus PC-24 Service Bulletin No. 91-001, dated
April 7, 2020. The service information specifies procedures necessary
to improve the electrical harness installation in the nose bay,
cockpit, avionics rack, fuselage, wing fairing, and rear fuselage. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 36 products of U.S.
registry. The FAA also estimates that it will take 20

work-hours per product to comply with the requirements of this AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about
$75 per product.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators at $63,900, or $1,775 per product.
    The FAA has included all costs in this cost estimate. According to
the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD may be covered
under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2021-01-05 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Amendment 39-21381; Docket No.
FAA-2020-0818; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00987-A.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 30, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-24 airplanes,
serial numbers 101 through 160 inclusive, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2497, ELECTRICAL
POWER SYSTEM WIRING; 3197, INSTRUMENT SYSTEM WIRING.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by electrical harness installations on some
PC-24 airplanes in production that did not comply with the approved
design. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent wire chafing and
potential arcing or failure of wires having the incorrect length.
The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of
system redundancy, electrical arcing, or loss of power plant fire
protection.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already accomplished, during the next annual inspection
after the effective date of this AD or within 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, modify the
electrical harness installation in accordance with sections 3.A.
through 3.H. of the Accomplishment Instructions in Pilatus PC-24
Service Bulletin No. 91-001, dated April 7, 2020.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to Doug Rudolph,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.

(h) Related Information

    (1) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2020-0158, dated July 16, 2020, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0818.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pilatus PC-24 Service Bulletin No. 91-001, dated April 7,
2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Pilatus Aircraft Ltd service information identified in
this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., CH-6371, Stans, Switzerland;
exception occurred on : 2021-03511.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-03511.htm
phone: +41 848 24 7 365; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com;
website: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 30, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03511 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19650-19651]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08401]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1418-000]

Adelanto Solar II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Adelanto Solar II, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is April 27, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic

service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or
be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 7, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08401 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 7699-7701]
[DOCID:fr16fe07-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55271; File No. SR-ISE-2007-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Payment for
Order Flow Fees

February 12, 2007.
    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 January 26, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. On February 1, 2007, the ISE submitted
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. ISE has designated this
proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.

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

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to reduce the
payment for order flow (``PFOF'') fees for options on issues that trade
as part of the Penny Pilot (``Pilot'').\5\ The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.iseoptions.com.

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

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54603 (October 16,
2006), 71 FR 62024 (October 20, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-62) (Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Implement a Pilot Program To Quote
and To Trade Options in Pennies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. ISE has substantially 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 Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees in
conjunction with the introduction of the Pilot by reducing the PFOF
fees for options on issues that trade as part of the Pilot. The Pilot
is scheduled to begin on January 26, 2007. The following issues will be
included in the Pilot: Agilent Technologies (A), Advanced Micro Devices
(AMD), Caterpillar (CAT), Flextronics International (FLEX), General
Electric (GE), Intel (INTC), iShares Russell 2000 Index fund (IWM),
Microsoft (MSFT), Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock (QQQQ), Semiconductor
Holders Trust (SMH), Sun Microsystems (SUNW), Texas Instruments (TXN),
and Whole Foods Markets (WFMI).
    The Exchange currently operates a PFOF program as approved by the
Commission.\6\ This program is funded through a fee, currently set at
$0.65 per contract, paid by Exchange market makers for each customer
contract they execute. All funds collected by the Exchange are
administered by specified market makers.\7\ PFOF fees collected by the
Exchange that are not distributed are rebated back to the market
makers. The Exchange now proposes to reduce the PFOF fees to $0.25 per
contract for transactions in all options on Pilot issues. This fee
reduction would also apply to other issues that become a part of the
Pilot in the event the Pilot is expanded beyond the current 13
securities. The Exchange believes that quoting and trading in one cent
increments pursuant to the Pilot would narrow spreads, resulting in
PFOF being less of a competitive factor. Thus, the Exchange believes it
is prudent for it to maintain its PFOF fee, but at a lower level in
options on Pilot issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43833 (January 10,
2001), 66 FR 7822 (January 25, 2001) (SR-ISE-2000-10).
    \7\ Initially only Primary Market Makers administered PFOF
pools. However, the Exchange recently amended its PFOF program to
allow a Competitive Market Maker (``CMM'') to administer the PFOF
funds collected by the Exchange with respect to orders in a group of
options classes preferenced to that CMM. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 53127 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3582 (January 23, 2006)
(SR-ISE-2005-57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \9\ in particular, because it is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among exchange members and
other persons using exchange facilities. In particular, the Exchange
believes that lowering PFOF fees in options on Pilot issues would
enhance competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78F(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition 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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \11\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal
will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60
days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \12\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, the
Commission considers the period to commence on February 1, 2007, the
date on which the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-ISE-2007-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities andExchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-08. 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. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of ISE. 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-ISE-2007-08 and should be
submitted on or before March 9, 2007.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant
to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2793 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60355-60360]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27272]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 243

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0033, Notice No. 5]
RIN 2130-AC70

Training, Qualification, and Oversight for Safety-Related
Railroad Employees

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In response to a petition for reconsideration of a final rule,
FRA proposes to amend its regulations (Training, Qualification, and
Oversight for Safety-Related Railroad Employees) by delaying certain
implementation dates an additional year. FRA previously delayed the
regulations' implementation dates for one year in a final rule
published May 3, 2017 (May 2017 Final Rule).

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received by
January 19, 2018. Comments received after that date will be considered
to the extent possible without incurring additional expense or delay.

ADDRESSES: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2009-0033 may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments;
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. DOT, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590;
     Hand Delivery: The Docket Management Facility is located
in Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays; or
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking (2130-AC70). All comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov; this includes any personal
information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the Supplementary
Information section of this document for Privacy Act information
related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents,
petitions for reconsideration, or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for accessing
the docket or visit the Docket Management Facility described above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Castiglione, Staff
Director--Human Performance Division, Federal Railroad Administration,
4100 International Plaza, Suite 450, Fort Worth, TX 76109-4820
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Alan H. Nagler, Senior Trial Attorney,
Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 7, 2014, FRA published a final
rule (2014 Final Rule) that established minimum training standards for
each category and subcategory of safety-related railroad employees and
required railroad carriers, contractors, and subcontractors to submit
training programs to FRA for approval. See 79

FR 66459. The 2014 Final Rule was required by section 401(a) of the
Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), Public Law 110-432, 122
Stat. 4883 (Oct. 16, 2008), codified at 49 U.S.C. 20162. The Secretary
of Transportation delegated the authority to conduct this rulemaking
and implement the rule to the Federal Railroad Administrator. 49 CFR
1.89(b).
    In the preamble to the 2014 Final Rule, FRA noted the importance of
establishing implementation dates and providing incentives for the
early filing of model programs to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the review process. FRA recognized it was paramount to
give model program developers sufficient time to develop programs and
receive FRA approval. FRA also recognized that employers would not use
those model programs unless the employers were given reasonable time to
consider those programs before the employers' deadline for
implementation. Consequently, the 2014 Final Rule provided model
program developers with an incentive to file all model programs by May
1, 2017--eight months before the first employers were required to
submit model programs and two years before smaller employers (i.e.,
those employers with less than 400,000 total employee work hours
annually) were required to submit their model programs. See 79 FR
66459, 66503-66504. The incentive to submit early was a guarantee from
FRA that the model program would be considered approved so it could be
implemented within 180 days after the date of submission unless FRA
identified that all or part of the program did not conform to the
rule's requirements.
    After publishing the 2014 Final Rule, FRA took significant steps to
educate the regulated community on its requirements and assist with the
development of model training plans. For example, on March 20, 2017,
FRA added information to its website to more broadly disseminate
information about the 2014 Final Rule's requirements. See https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1023.\1\ Moreover, when ASLRRA requested FRA's
help in developing its model programs for its members, FRA shared
training documents it uses to train the agency's personnel on Federal
rail safety requirements. FRA then made those same FRA training
documents available on FRA's website because others in the regulated
community would likely find them useful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Additional details about each of those steps are contained
in the May 2017 Final Rule. See 82 FR 20549 (May 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During FRA outreach on the 2014 Final Rule, FRA heard concerns from
ASLRRA and the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance
Association, Inc. (NRC), which were two of the associations identified
in the 2014 Final Rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) as likely
model program developers. These two associations represent most of the
1,459 employers FRA projected would adopt model training programs
rather than develop their own.\2\ Although ASLRRA had submitted several
model training programs to FRA, and had made significant strides
towards completing some programs, ASLRRA still had a significant number
of training programs left to develop and submit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The RIA for the 2014 Final Rule provided the estimated costs
and benefits, and explained FRA based this analysis on the premise
that ``most small railroads and contractors will use consortiums or
model training programs developed by industry associations . . .
thereby minimizing costs.'' RIA at 15. In the RIA, FRA estimated
that 1,459 railroads and contractors would use model programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on ASLRRA and NRC's concerns about their ability to submit
their model training programs by the May 1, 2017, deadline, and the
significant impact that not meeting the deadline would have on the
costs associated with the rule and FRA's approval process, FRA issued
the May 2017 Final Rule extending each of the implementation dates in
the 2014 Final Rule by one year.

Petition for Reconsideration

    On May 22, 2017, ASLRRA filed a petition for reconsideration of the
May 2017 Final Rule. ASLRRA's petition was the only petition FRA
received, and FRA did not receive any comments on the May 2017 Final
Rule or ASLRRA's petition.
    In the petition, ASLRRA stated that the association will need more
than a one-year delay on each of the implementation dates in the 2014
Final Rule and requested that the one-year extension be extended
further by another year. In the petition, ASLRRA stated that it
represents over 500 Class II and III railroads and has assumed the
responsibility for preparing model training programs for its member
railroads' use. ASLRRA asserts that it still has a significant number
of model programs left to develop and submit.
    ASLRRA states in its petition that it is utilizing a large group of
volunteer safety professionals from the ranks of its Safety and
Training Committee to develop the model programs. ASLRRA is using these
volunteers because the association asserts it would not otherwise have
the resources to complete the task. With the commitments it received
from volunteers, ASLRRA has mapped out a schedule to complete the model
training programs by fall 2018.\3\ ASLRRA's estimated completion date
would mean that many of its model programs would likely not be
completed by the May 1, 2018, deadline afforded by the May 2017 Final
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Interested parties can view that schedule at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FRA-2009-0033-0039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ASLRRA's petition states that extending the one-year delay
will allow adequate time to comply with FRA's review and approval
process and thereby assure its members that its model programs have
been approved by FRA. According to ASLRRA the additional one-year
extension will also allow each railroad adequate time to consider how
it will implement each of the model programs it will adopt and whether
it will need to adapt the programs to address any unique aspects of its
operations.

FRA's Response

    FRA delayed each of the implementation dates in the 2014 Final Rule
by one year largely because if both ASLRRA and NRC cannot submit most
or all of their model training programs by the model program developer
deadline, there would be significant cost impacts associated with the
rule and it would complicate the approval process. Indeed, even if the
ASLRRA alone were unable to submit its model programs for its more than
500 member railroads, the cost impacts would still be substantial.
    The 500 or more railroad employers that rely on ASLRRA to produce
model programs would bear significantly higher costs developing
personalized training programs, rather than adopting model programs
that are generic enough to apply to the gamut of railroads. Further,
FRA's resources would be stretched thin reviewing potentially 500 or
more individual Class II and Class III railroad employer programs,
rather than a relatively small number of model programs. Moreover, by
providing ASLRRA additional time to produce model programs, FRA expects
the quality of those model programs will be much better than those
separately prepared by a large number of individual small or medium-
sized railroads. Of course, FRA does not see the value in limiting the
extension only to ASLRRA and its member railroads. FRA believes all
regulated entities can

benefit from having additional time to implement the rule's
requirements.
    Overall, the additional one-year delay of the implementation dates
should allow all model training program developers and other regulated
entities to meet the rule's deadlines. FRA understands that many
regulated entities were on schedule to meet the original deadlines in
the 2014 Final Rule, or were preparing to meet the deadlines delayed by
the May 2017 Final Rule. For those regulated entities that are prepared
to move forward in advance of any deadline, there is certainly no
prohibition against doing so and implementing a more robust training
program should benefit the overall safety of those employers who are
early adopters.
    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to delay each of
the implementation dates in the May 2017 Final Rule by an additional
year, thereby delaying each of the implementation dates in the 2014
Final Rule by a total of two years.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Subpart B--Program Components and Approval Process

Section 243.101 Employer Program Required
    The implementation dates in this proposed section would be
cumulatively delayed by two years from the 2014 Final Rule so all
employers have additional time to develop and submit training programs.
Specifically, as previously amended by the May 2017 Final Rule, in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) the January 1, 2019, implementation dates
would be changed to January 1, 2020. Likewise, in paragraph (a)(2) the
May 1, 2020, implementation date, as previously amended by the May 2017
Final Rule, would be changed to May 1, 2021.
Section 243.105 Optional Model Program Development
    The implementation date in proposed paragraph (a)(3) of this
section would be cumulatively delayed by two years from the 2014 Final
Rule so that all model program developers have additional time to
submit model programs, while also potentially benefiting from an
expedited FRA review process. Under the May 2017 Final Rule, each model
program submitted to FRA before May 1, 2018, would be considered
approved and may be implemented 180 days after the date of the
submission, unless FRA otherwise advises that all or part of the
program does not conform to the rule's requirements. This NPRM proposes
to extend that date until May 1, 2019.
Section 243.111 Approval of Programs Filed by Training Organizations or
Learning Institutions
    FRA proposes that each training organization or learning
institution that has provided training services to employers covered by
this part would cumulatively have an additional two years from the 2014
Final Rule to continue to offer such training services without FRA
approval. As previously amended by the May 2017 Final Rule, a training
organization or learning institution that has provided training
services to employers covered by this part before January 1, 2018, may
continue to offer such training services without FRA approval until
January 1, 2019. FRA proposes to amend paragraph (b) of this section so
that both dates are delayed by an additional year. Accordingly, the
proposed requirement states that a training organization or learning
institution that has provided training services to employers covered by
this part before January 1, 2019, may continue to offer such training
services without FRA approval until January 1, 2020.

Subpart C--Program Implementation and Oversight Requirements

Section 243.201 Employee Qualification Requirements
    The implementation dates in this section would be cumulatively
delayed by two years from the 2014 Final Rule so all employers have
additional time to designate each of their existing safety-related
railroad employees by occupational category or subcategory, and only
permit designated employees to perform safety-related service in such
occupational category or subcategory. In paragraph (a)(1), the
September 1, 2019, implementation date, as previously amended by the
May 2017 Final Rule, would be changed to September 1, 2020. Likewise,
in paragraph (a)(2) the January 1, 2021, implementation date, as
previously amended by the May 2017 Final Rule, would be changed to
January 1, 2022.\4\ Further, the dates used for referencing total
employee work hours for purposes of applying both paragraphs would be
modified accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FRA notes that while the May 2017 Final Rule correctly
amended the implementation date in paragraph (a)(2), the section-by-
section analysis contained an incorrect statement that the paragraph
(a)(2) deadline in the 2014 Final Rule was May 1, 2019; that date
was January 1, 2020, calculated as four years and eight months from
the date of issuance of FRA's Interim Final Compliance Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposed paragraph (b), the January 1, 2019, implementation
date, as previously amended by the May 2017 Final Rule, would change to
January 1, 2020.
    In proposed paragraphs (e)(1) and (2), the implementation dates for
refresher training would also be cumulatively delayed by two years from
the 2014 Final Rule. Thus, the January 1, 2021, implementation date in
paragraph (e)(1), as previously amended by the May 2017 Final Rule,
would change to January 1, 2022, and the proposed completion of that
refresher training for each employee would be required no later than
December 31, 2024, instead of the previously amended date of December
31, 2023. In proposed paragraph (e)(2), each employer with less than
400,000 total employee work hours annually would be required to
implement a refresher training program by May 1, 2023, rather than the
previously amended date of May 1, 2022, and complete that refresher
training for each employee by no later than December 31, 2025, instead
of the previously amended date of December 31, 2024.

Regulatory Impact and Notices

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13771, and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This proposed rule is a non-significant regulatory action within
the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures.
See 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979). The proposed rule also follows the
direction of Executive Order 13563 which emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules,
and promoting flexibility. Finally, the proposed rule follows the
guidance of Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'') which directs agencies to reduce
regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every
one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified
for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.'' FRA identified
this proposed rule as a deregulatory effort to comply with E.O. 13771.
For more information on Executive Order 13771, see OMB's April 5, 2017
``Memorandum: Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.' ''
    In 2014, FRA published a Final Rule which established minimum
training standards for each category and subcategory of safety-related
railroad employee, as required by section 401(a) of the RSIA. FRA
believes that this proposed rule will reduce the regulatory

burden on the railroad industry by delaying the implementation dates of
the 2014 Final Rule. In May 2017, FRA issued a Final Rule which delayed
each of the implementation dates in the 2014 Final Rule by one year.
This proposed rule will extend the implementation deadlines by a total
of two years from the 2014 Final Rule, one year of which has already
been granted in the May 2017 Final Rule. This proposed rule would be
beneficial for regulated entities by adding time to comply with the
2014 Final Rule.
    The costs arising from part 243 over the 20-year period include:
The costs of revising training programs to include ``hands-on''
training where appropriate, as well as the costs of creating entirely
new training programs for any employer that does not have one already;
the costs of customizing model training programs for those employers
that choose to adopt a model program rather than create a new program;
the costs of annual data review and analysis required in order to
refine training programs; the costs of revising programs in later
years; the costs of additional time new employees may have to spend in
initial training; the costs of additional periodic oversight tests and
inspections; the costs of additional qualification tests; and the costs
of additional time all safety-related railroad employees may have to
spend in refresher training.
    FRA believes that additional hands-on and refresher training found
in the 2014 Final Rule will reduce the frequency and severity of some
future accidents and incidents. Expected safety benefits were
calculated using full accident costs, which are based on past accident
history, the values of preventing future fatalities and injuries
sustained, and the cost of property damage. (Full accident costs are
determined by the number of fatalities and injuries multiplied by their
respective prevention valuations, and the cost of property damage.)
    By delaying the implementation dates of the 2014 Final Rule,
railroads will realize a cost savings. Railroads will not incur costs
during the first two years of this analysis. Also, costs incurred in
future years will be discounted an extra two years, which will decrease
the present value burden. The present value of costs would be less than
if the original implementation dates were adhered to. FRA has estimated
this cost savings to be approximately $40.6 million, at a 3% discount
rate, and $37.2 million, at a 7% discount rate. The table below shows
the costs estimated at the final rule stage as well as the costs with
the two-year implementation delay.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Present       Present
                                               value (3%)    value (7%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total costs (2-year delay)..................  $250,309,438  $169,902,295
Final rule costs............................   290,932,418   207,068,184
Two-year-delay cost savings.................    40,622,980    37,165,889
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272; Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Assessment

    FRA has determined and certifies that this proposed rule is not
expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The requirements of this proposed rule would apply to
employers of safety-related railroad employees, whether the employers
are railroads, contractors, or subcontractors. Although a substantial
number of small entities would be subject to this proposed rule, it
would provide relief by extending all of the implementation dates in
the 2014 Final Rule, as amended by the May 2017 Final Rule. Thus, the
economic impact of this proposed rule would not be significant because
it would only provide additional time for all entities to comply with
the 2014 Final Rule.
    This proposed rule would have no direct impact on small units of
government, businesses, or other organizations. State rail agencies are
not required to participate in this program. State owned railroads
would receive a positive impact by having additional time to comply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no new collection of information requirements contained
in this proposed rule and, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the record keeping and reporting
requirements already contained in the 2014 Final Rule have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The OMB approval
number is OMB No. 2130-0597. Thus, FRA is not required to seek
additional OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Federalism Implications

    This proposed rule would not have a substantial effect on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Thus in accordance with Executive Order
13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a
Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards 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.
    This proposed rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected
to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or
for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with its
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures)
(64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes,
Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has
determined that this proposed rule is not a major FRA action, requiring
the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment, because it is categorically excluded from detailed
environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures.
See 64 FR 28547 (May 26, 1999).
    In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the
agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist
with respect to this proposed rule that might trigger the need for a
more detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this
proposed rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law). Section 202 of the Act (2
U.S.C. 1532) further requires that before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$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 proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

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). FRA evaluated this proposed rule in accordance
with Executive Order 13211, and determined that this regulatory action
is not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of the
Executive Order.
    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 particular attention to oil, natural
gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. 82 FR 16093 (March 31, 2017).
FRA determined this proposed rule would not burden the development or
use of domestically produced energy resources.

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 243

    Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Railroad
employees, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
as follows:

PART 243--TRAINING, QUALIFICATION, AND OVERSIGHT FOR SAFETY-RELATED
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES

0
1. The authority citation for part 243 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20131-20155, 20162, 20301-
20306, 20701-20702, 21301-21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49
CFR 1.89.

Subpart B--Program Components and Approval Process

0
2. Revise Sec.  243.101(a) and (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  243.101  Employer program required.

    (a)(1) Effective January 1, 2020, each employer conducting
operations subject to this part with 400,000 total employee work hours
annually or more shall submit, adopt, and comply with a training
program for its safety-related railroad employees.
    (2) Effective May 1, 2021, each employer conducting operations
subject to this part with less than 400,000 total employee work hours
annually shall submit, adopt, and comply with a training program for
its safety-related railroad employees.
    (b) Except for an employer subject to the requirement in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, an employer commencing operations subject to
this part after January 1, 2020, shall submit a training program for
its safety-related railroad employees before commencing operations.
Upon commencing operations, the employer shall adopt and comply with
the training program.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec.  243.105(a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  243.105  Optional model program development.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Each model training program submitted to FRA before May 1,
2019, is considered approved and may be implemented 180 days after the
date of submission unless the Associate Administrator advises the
organization, business, or association that developed and submitted the
program that all or part of the program does not conform.
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec.  243.111(b) to read as follows:

Sec.  243.111  Approval of programs filed by training organizations or
learning institutions.

* * * * *
    (b) A training organization or learning institution that has
provided training services to employers covered by this part before
January 1, 2019, may continue to offer such training services without
FRA approval until January 1, 2020. The Associate Administrator may
extend this period at any time based on a written request. Such written
requests for an extension of time to submit a program should contain
any factors the training organization or learning institution wants the
Associate Administrator to consider before approving or disapproving
the extension.
* * * * *

Subpart C--Program Implementation and Oversight Requirements

0
5. Revise Sec.  243.201(a)(1) and (2), (b), and (e)(1) and (2) to read
as follows:

Sec.  243.201  Employee qualification requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) By no later than September 1, 2020, each employer with 400,000
total employee work hours annually or more in operation as of January
1, 2020, shall declare the designation of each of its existing safety-
related railroad employees by occupational category or subcategory, and
only permit designated employees to perform safety-related service in
that occupational category or subcategory. The Associate Administrator
may extend this period based on a written request.
    (2) By no later than January 1, 2022, each employer with less than
400,000 total employee work hours annually in operation as of January
1, 2021, shall declare the designation of each of its existing safety-
related railroad employees by occupational category or subcategory, and
only permit designated employees to perform safety-related service in
that occupational category or subcategory. The Associate Administrator
may extend this period based on a written request.
    (b) Except for an employer subject to the requirement in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, an employer commencing operations after January
1, 2020, shall declare the designation of each of its existing safety-
related railroad employees by occupational category or subcategory
before beginning operations, and only permit designated employees to
perform safety-related service in that category or subcategory. Any
person designated shall have met the requirements for newly hired
employees or those assigned new safety-related duties in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Beginning January 1, 2022, each employer with 400,000 total
employee work hours annually or more shall deliver refresher training
at an interval not to exceed 3 calendar years from the date of an
employee's last training event, except where refresher training is
specifically required more frequently in

accordance with this chapter. If the last training event occurs before
FRA's approval of the employer's training program, the employer shall
provide refresher training either within 3 calendar years from that
prior training event or no later than December 31, 2024. Each employer
shall ensure that, as part of each employee's refresher training, the
employee is trained and qualified on the application of any Federal
railroad safety laws, regulations, and orders the person is required to
comply with, as well as any relevant railroad rules and procedures
promulgated to implement those Federal railroad safety laws,
regulations, and orders.
    (2) Beginning May 1, 2023, each employer with less than 400,000
total employee work hours annually shall deliver refresher training at
an interval not to exceed 3 calendar years from the date of an
employee's last training event, except where refresher training is
specifically required more frequently in accordance with this chapter.
If the last training event occurs before FRA's approval of the
employer's training program, the employer shall provide refresher
training either within 3 calendar years from that prior training event
or no later than December 31, 2025. Each employer shall ensure that, as
part of each employee's refresher training, the employee is trained and
qualified on the application of any Federal railroad safety laws,
regulations, and orders the person is required to comply with, as well
as any relevant railroad rules and procedures promulgated to implement
those Federal railroad safety laws, regulations, and orders.

Juan D. Reyes III,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-27272 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71712-71713]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0109 and NHTSA-2018-0074; Notice 1]

Consolidated Glass & Mirror, LLC, Receipt of Petitions for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: Consolidated Glass & Mirror, LLC (CGM), a subsidiary of
Guardian Industries Corporation (Guardian), has determined that certain
laminated glass parts do not fully comply with Federal motor vehicle
safety standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. Guardian filed two
noncompliance reports dated April 15, 2020 and December 14, 2018 CGM
petitioned NHTSA on May 23, 2018, and December 20, 2018, for a decision
that the subject noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of CGM's
petitions.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 10,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket number(s) and notice number cited in the title of this notice
and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID numbers for these petitions are
shown in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    CGM has determined that certain laminated glass parts do not fully
comply with paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR
571.205). On May 23, 2018, Guardian petitioned NHTSA for an
inconsequential safety decision (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49
CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance)
without initially filing a noncompliance report (49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports). Although NHTSA
could have properly rejected this petition, it did not and prompted
Guardian to file the required noncompliance report. Guardian finally
did so on April 15, 2020. Guardian filed another noncompliance report
dated December 14, 2018 and subsequently filed a second petition on
December 20, 2018, for a decision that this second noncompliance is
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety. Because the two
petitions address similar issues, this document announces the receipt
of the two CGM's petitions.
    This notice of receipt of CGM's petitions is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercises of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Equipment Involved

    Approximately 223 laminated windshields manufactured on March 8,
2018, and shipped to IC Corp Tulsa Bus Plant for installation into
Navistar buses are potentially involved.
    Approximately 1,390 bus door window panes, manufactured between
November 1, 2017 and March 29, 2018 are potentially involved. The
window panes were sold to Vapor Bus for use in the fabrication of bus
doors. Vapor Bus subsequently shipped the bus doors to Nova Bus for
installation in their buses.

III. Noncompliance

    CGM explained that the noncompliance is that the markings on the
subject laminated glass panes do not fully meet the requirements
specified in paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205. Specifically, the laminated
glass panes shipped to IC Corp Tulsa Bus Plant were marked AS-2, when
they should have been marked AS-1 and the bus window panes sold to Nova
Bus were marked AS-S, when they should have been marked AS-2.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205 includes the requirements relevant to
this petition. A manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of
glazing material, to which FMVSS No. 205 applies, for use in a motor
vehicle or

camper, must mark that material in accordance with section 7 of ANSI/
SAE Z26.1-1996.

V. Summary of CGM's Petitions

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, V.
Summary of CGM's Petitions, are the views and arguments provided by
CGM. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the
views of the Agency. The petitioner described the subject
noncompliances and stated their belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of their petitions, CGM submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. The laminated glass parts are affixed with the CGM trademark and
the correct DOT number and M number.
    2. Although the laminated glass parts are affixed with the
misprinted AS number, the glass construction from which the laminated
glass parts were fabricated is in full compliance with the technical
requirements that 49 CFR 571.205 as it currently applies to laminated
glass for use in a motor vehicle. In no way is the actual safety aspect
of the laminated glass compromised by the misprinted AS number.
    3. Despite the misprinted AS number being affixed to the laminated
glass parts described herein, the correct parts were sold and shipped
to Navistar and Nova Bus for use as windscreens and door windows.
    4. CGM asserts that the noncompliance reported herein could not
result in the wrong part being used in an OEM application, given that
the part would be ordered by its unique part number and not the ``M
number'' (which corresponds to the glass construction from which the
part is fabricated). The parts are also easily traceable back to CGM
via their unique DOT number.
    CGM concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle
safety, and that their petitions to be exempted from providing
notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and
a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should
be granted.
    CGM's complete petitions and all supporting documents are available
by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at:
https://www.regulations.gov and following the online search
instructions to locate the docket numbers listed in the title of this
notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
these petitions only applies to the subject equipment that CGM no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliances
existed. However, any decision on these petitions does not relieve
equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant equipment under their control
after CGM notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-24825 Filed 11-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3223-3224]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1222]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042; FRL-9621-3]
RIN 2060-AQ90

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA published in the Federal Register on November 25,
2011, the proposed rules, ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing.'' The EPA was asked to hold a public hearing only on the
wool fiberglass manufacturing proposed rule, and on December 20, 2011,
published a notice announcing the hearing and extending the comment
period for only the wool fiberglass manufacturing proposed rule (76 FR
78872). The comment period for the mineral wool production proposed
rule was not extended because no public hearing was requested and no
requests

for an extension of the comment period were received. It has come to
our attention that confusion arose from the result of having two
different comment periods for the two proposed rules in the same
action. Therefore, the EPA is extending the public comment period for
the mineral wool production proposed rule for 10 days from January 24,
2012 to February 3, 2012, so that comments on both rules in this action
are due on the same date.

DATES: Comments must be received by February 3, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the November 25,
2011, proposed rule should be addressed to Susan Fairchild, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D 243-04), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The proposal for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP was published in the Federal Register on November
25, 2011, and is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html and also in the docket identified below.

How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The EPA has established dockets for the proposed rules, ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool
Production Risk and Technology Review,'' under No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
1041; and ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review,'' under No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042. Both dockets are available at
www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 17, 2012.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-1222 Filed 1-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 68465-68467]
[DOCID:fr18no08-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58910; File No. SR-DTC-2008-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Implement
Processing Enhancements to the Profile Modification System Used in the
Direct Registration System

November 6, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On July 7, 2008, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the

Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notice of the proposal was published in the Federal
Register on August 11, 2008.\2\ No comment letters were received. For
the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58292 (August 1, 2008),
73 FR 46693 (August 11, 2008) [File No. SR-DTC-2008-07].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    As the use of the Direct Registration System (``DRS'') continues to
grow, attention has centered on reducing the number of rejected
instructions submitted through the Profile Modification System
(``Profile''), a facility administered by DTC that allows an investor's
DRS position to be transferred from the records of the transfer agents
\3\ to a broker-dealer and vice versa. In order to effectively transfer
an investor's securities position using Profile, the broker-dealer DTC
participant must enter into Profile an instruction containing certain
identifying criteria of the investor, such as share quantity and a
taxpayer identification number (``TIN'') or Social Security Number. If
the submitted information does not match the information the DRS
Limited Participant (i.e., the transfer agent) has on its file, the
Profile instruction is rejected, which may result in a rejection fee
assessed by the DRS Limited Participant. More importantly, the
rejection can also result in delays in transferring the position, which
could possibly cause financial harm to an investor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Transfer agents must be designated as DRS Limited
Participants by DTC in order to facilitate DRS instructions through
Profile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, nearly 25% of all Profile instructions are rejected by the
transfer agents. The two most common reasons for rejections are the
Profile instruction not matching the share quantity or the investor's
TIN or Social Security number on the transfer agent's records. The DRS
Ad Hoc Committee, an industry committee established to address
operational issues related to DRS, believes that by implementing
certain system and processing improvements, about 7,000 Profile
rejections per month could potentially be eliminated.

A. Proposed Changes to Profile

    In an effort to decrease the number of rejections in Profile, DTC
will make the following enhancements to Profile functionality.
    Move All Instruction. Currently, Profile requires a participant to
enter a specific share quantity or dollar value (in the case of debt)
in its Profile instruction. Under the rule change, a participant
submitting an instruction in Profile will be allowed to select one of
the following options: (1) Enter a specific share quantity or dollar
value; (2) ``move all'' of the investor's whole shares \4\ to the
requesting participant's account at DTC; (3) ``move all'' of the
investor's whole shares to the requesting participant's account at DTC,
liquidate any fractional share positions remaining in the account at
the transfer agent, and have the cash proceeds mailed directly to the
investor; (4) ``move all'' of the investor's whole shares to the
requesting participant's account at DTC, liquidate any fractional share
positions remaining in the account at the transfer agent, have the cash
proceeds mailed directly to the investor, and close the investor's DRS
and Dividend Reinvestment Plan (``DRIP'') account.\5\ By using the
``move-all'' functionality, participants can forgo referencing a
specific share quantity in the Profile instruction, which DTC believes
should eliminate a major cause of Profile rejections.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DTC's systems only process and allow whole shares to be
processed and held in participants' accounts at DTC. They do not
accommodate fractional shares.
    \5\ Some transfer agents maintain separate investor accounts for
DRIP shares and DRS positions. The participant's instruction through
Profile to close the account would require a DRS Limited Participant
to close both the DRIP and the DRS account.
    \6\ Although DRS Limited Participants are able to enter Profile
instructions to move DRS positions from a broker-dealer's account at
DTC to the investor's account on the books of the transfer agent,
the proposed rule change will not permit the ``move all'' function
in Profile to be available to the DRS Limited Participant at this
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dual TIN or Social Security Numbers. Currently, participants are
permitted to enter only one TIN or Social Security number in its
Profile instruction. Under the rule change, participants may elect to
submit a Profile instruction with two TINs or Social Security numbers
instead of one. The option to submit a Profile instruction with two TIN
or Social Security numbers may be necessary, for example, where the
investor's account is a joint account. For those Profile instructions
with two TINs or Social Security Numbers, the transfer agent will only
need to match on one of the TIN or Social security numbers on the
Profile instruction to the its records for the investor account.
    The rule change will require broker-dealers and transfer agents
that process their DRS transactions through a direct electronic
computer-to-computer link with DTC to make internal system enhancements
to accommodate DTC's changes to Profile.\7\ Specifically, internal
systems will need to be enhanced so that they are able to accept DRS
Profile instructions to ``move all'' shares from the investor's account
at the transfer agent to the investor's broker-dealer's account at DTC.
They will also need to be enhanced to provide for the processing of a
Profile instruction with a second TIN/Social Security Number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ It is anticipated that for those users that communicate
Profile instructions through DTC through a dedicated terminal (PTS
or PBS), they will only need to update their internal procedures and
workflow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Remuneration

    Pursuant to the new rule, broker-dealers will be required to pay
transfer agents two types of remuneration: (1) Reimbursement to
compensate for the initial system development of the enhancements
contemplated under the move-all proposal and (2) a transaction fee to
pay for the on-going administration of the proposed new functions.
Accordingly, broker-dealers will pay for seventy-five percent of all
system costs with a maximum payment of $200,000 per transfer agent for
project plans submitted by transfer agents to DTC by September 1, 2008.
For project plans that will be managed by a third party vendor, broker-
dealers will be required to pay a remuneration based on the vendor's
total project cost. DTC will act as a conduit to collect and distribute
the remuneration from the broker-dealers to transfer agents.
    Under the ``move all'' proposal, transfer agents were required to
submit a project plan to DTC by September 1, 2008, and should be ready
to implement the ``move all'' Profile functionality by November 1,
2008, in order to be eligible to receive the system cost remuneration.
DTC will make a one time payment to eligible transfer agents no later
than ninety calendar days after the completion of the move all and dual
TIN or Social Security Number functionality going live. DTC will
collect a surcharge of $1.00 from broker-dealers for no more than
twenty-four calendar months for each Profile transaction submitted by a
broker-dealer in order to offset the up-front remuneration made by DTC
to transfer agents. DTC will eliminate the surcharge at the end of
twenty-four calendar months or sooner if the total amount of up-front
remuneration paid by DTC is collected before the twenty-four month
period has expired.
    DTC will also charge broker-dealers $.75 per Profile transaction to
offset the transfer agents' on-going costs of

supporting the ``move all'' function. The transaction fee will be
adjusted annually to reflect DRS Profile transactional volume changes.
The rule change will require transfer agents that wish to receive a
transaction fee to have submitted their project plan by September 1,
2008. The transfer agents represented on the DRS Ad Hoc Committee have
agreed that the remunerations from the transactional fee will be no
more than $25,000 per year per transfer agent. DTC will pay each
eligible transfer agent with 2,000 or more Profile transactions monthly
a set monthly amount of $2,080, or $24,960 annually. DTC will pay each
eligible transfer agent with at least 200 transactions monthly but less
than 2,000 transactions monthly a set monthly amount of $800, or $9,600
annually. DTC will not pay transfer agents with less than 200
transactions a month.

C. DRS Limited Participant Eligibility Requirements

    DTC will amend its DRS Limited Participant rules to require
transfer agents to be able to process Profile instructions requesting
the ``move all'' options and instructions including dual TIN or Social
Security Numbers. To maintain eligibility as a DRS Limited Participant,
all current DRS Limited Participants must provide ``move all'' and dual
TIN or Social Security number processing capability by no later than
December 31, 2008.

III. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, assure
the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the
clearance and settlement of securities transactions, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.\8\ The rule change is consistent with the provisions of the
Act because it improves efficiency and reduces risks in DRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the Commission finds that
the rule change, is consistent with DTC's obligation under Section 17A
of the Act to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-DTC-2008-07) be and hereby
is approved.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Practices,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27278 Filed 11-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6439-6440]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02342]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0028; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-41]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Dyersburg, TN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E surface airspace in
Dyersburg, TN, as the Nally Dunston non-directional beacon (NDB) has
been decommissioned, and associated approaches cancelled for Dyersburg
Regional Airport. This action would update the airport name and
geographic coordinates. In addition, this action would also make an
editorial change replacing the term Airport/Facility Directory with the
term Chart Supplement in the legal description of associated Class E
airspace. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: The United States
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify
the Docket No. FAA-2021-0028; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-41 at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F Airspace Designations and Reporting Points
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would amend airspace in Dyersburg, TN, to support IFR operations
in the area.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2021-0028 and Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-41) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see

ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number). You may also
submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2021-0028; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-41.'' The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class E
surface airspace at Dyersburg Regional Airport, Dyersburg, TN, due the
decommissioning of the Nally Dunston NDB and cancellation of associated
approaches. This action would also update the airport name (formerly
Dyersburg Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates to coincide
with the FAA's database.
    This action would also replace the outdated term Airport/Facility
Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the airport description.
    Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6002 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document would be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed 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. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations, and Reporting
Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO TN E2 Dyersburg, TN [Amended]

Dyersburg Regional Airport, TN
    (Lat. 35[deg]59'53'' N, long. 89[deg]24'24'' W)

    That airspace upward from the surface within a 4.7-mile radius
of the Dyersburg Regional Airport. This Class E airspace is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 27, 2022.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-02342 Filed 2-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P