contacting employees in this intermediate period. The RSIA provided FRA
with limited regulatory authority, which FRA may consider exercising if
substantial scientific evidence demonstrates that such communication is
posing an unacceptable risk to railroad safety from employee
fatigue.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As will be discussed below, a railroad may contact an
employee in certain limited circumstances even during the portion of
an off-duty period that is required to be undisturbed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Is it a violation for a railroad to intentionally call an employee
to delay that employee's ability to report for duty?
    No, provided that the employee at some point has at least a
statutory minimum off-duty period that is free from communication,
before being required to report for duty. So long as an employee
receives a statutory minimum off-duty period in the 24 hours prior to
reporting for duty, communications outside of that period do not
violate the prohibition on communication. Accordingly, it is not a
violation for a railroad to contact an employee during other periods,
as discussed above. The BLET and UTU joint comment argues that
intentionally calling an employee in order to disrupt his or her off-
duty period and require a new period to start violates Sec. 21103(e).
As discussed above, only the statutory minimum off-duty period and
periods of interim release for train employees are required to be
uninterrupted by communications likely to disturb rest. Because the
statutory minimum off-duty period does not need to be designated as
such, the hours of service laws are not violated by these types of
calls. For example, if an employee is called 8 hours after being
released from duty, the statute will not be violated, but the employee
must be provided 10 or more hours off duty (depending on the minimum
statutory off duty period required for the employee) without such
communication, beginning at the time the contact ended, to successfully
complete a statutory off duty period and prevent any future activity
for the railroad from commingling with the previous duty tour . If
situations arise in which employees believe that a railroad is
intentionally contacting an employee so that the employee's rest will
have to be restarted (which restart delays the employee's eligibility
to report for duty, increases the required off-duty period, and
decreases the employee's income), such issues are a matter to be
resolved between railroads and their employees through other
mechanisms. So long as the rest period is restarted and the employee
has 10 hours of uninterrupted rest before being called to report for
duty, there is no violation of the statute.
3. For what purposes may an employee contact a railroad during the
uninterrupted rest period?
    In the Interim Interpretations, FRA stated that employees may
choose to contact the railroad during the uninterrupted rest period,
but that the railroad may only respond to the issues raised by the
employee. However, FRA also flatly stated that railroads may not
contact employees to delay an employee's assignment, with no reference
to the preceding exception.\19\ In their joint comment, BLET and UTU
ask FRA to resolve the apparent contradiction between these two
interpretations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 74 FR 30665, 30672 (June 26, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA recognizes that the prohibition extends to communication by the
railroad, not to communication by the employee. Therefore, FRA
concludes that an employee may contact a railroad about any issue,
including issues related to establishing or delaying a time for the
employee to report, without the communication from the employee
interrupting the rest period. In addition, a railroad may return the
employee's call, if requested to do so by the employee, for the
employee's convenience and to prevent the employee having to make
repeated phone calls; these calls also do not interrupt the employee's
rest period. However, any return phone call made by the railroad must
be limited to the terms established by the employee. For example, an
employee may indicate when he or she wishes to be called back (such as,
within the next hour, or, in 6 hours, if the employee were planning to
go to sleep and preferred to have the return call after waking up).
Further, absent an emergency, the return call must be limited to the
subject of the employee's call. For example, if an employee calls
during the statutory minimum off-duty period to schedule a vacation
day, the railroad returns that call, and the railroad raises an issue
not discussed by the employee, such as establishing a report for duty
time, the employee's rest period has been interrupted, and the employee
must have a new statutory minimum off-duty period in order to separate
any subsequent service from the prior duty tour.
    Additionally, the time spent in calls that do not interrupt the
off-duty period as described above will not be time off duty and may
commingle with a prior or subsequent duty tour if the content of the
call is service for the railroad carrier. For instance, a call from an
employee discussing the circumstances of the on-duty injury of one of
his or her crewmembers is considered service for the railroad carrier,
and therefore is service that is not time off duty and may commingle
with a prior or subsequent duty tour. See Federal Railroad
Administration, Hours of Service Interpretations, Operating Practices
Technical Bulletin OP-04-29 (Feb. 3, 2004). To avoid having the time
spent on the call commingling and therefore becoming time on duty, the
employee must have a statutory minimum off-duty period between the call
and any time on duty.
    FRA has historically recognized that some types of communication
between a railroad and an employee are ``at the behest of the
railroad'' and are therefore properly considered to be service for the
carrier that is not time off duty. In recognition of the realities of
railroad

operations and the desirability of maximizing the employee's ability to
know his or her next reporting time and therefore that employee's
ability to plan his or her rest during the off-duty period, FRA has
also provided an exception from this general rule for calls to
establish or delay an employee's time to report. In enforcing the new
prohibition on communication by the railroad with train employees and
signal employees during certain of their off-duty periods, FRA will
continue to abide by this longstanding interpretation, if the calls are
initiated by the employee, and any call made by the railroad is in
return of a call made by the employee, as requested by the employee and
limited to the terms of the employee's request. While the establishment
of a time to report for duty is service, FRA will extend its prior
interpretation so that such communications are permitted and do not
interrupt an off-duty period when the calls are initiated by the
employee, and any call made by the railroad is in return of a call made
by the employee, as requested by the employee and limited to the terms
of the employee's request. As a result, employees may call a railroad
during their statutory minimum off-duty period to establish or delay a
time to report, and railroads may return these calls, if an employee
requests a return call and the return call is limited to any terms
established by the employee as to the time and the content of the call,
and that contact will not be considered to have interrupted the rest
period or to require that it be restarted, provided that the time at
which the employee is required to report is after the required period
of uninterrupted rest.
    This interpretation, which FRA has articulated in part and
communicated in correspondence already, allows employees to have
greater predictability as to when they will go to work, and a greater
opportunity to plan their off-duty time to obtain adequate rest and
handle other personal tasks and activities. Employees are able to take
assignments when their statutory minimum off-duty period will have been
completed at or prior to the report time, even if they would not have
been fully rested at the time of the call to report. Conversely, in
some cases, employees may be able to schedule themselves for an
assignment that will allow them some additional time off duty to obtain
additional rest or attend to personal activities. However, this
interpretation should not be read as allowing any railroad to adopt a
policy that requires employees to call the railroad, or requires
employees to grant the railroad permission to call the employee during
the statutory off-duty period. Employees who do not call the railroad,
and do not choose to receive communication from the railroad, during
the period of uninterrupted rest, must not be called by the railroad to
establish a report time until after 10 hours of uninterrupted rest, and
the employee must not be disciplined or otherwise penalized for that
decision.
    FRA is aware that, having provided employees with an avenue for
receiving information relating to their time to report during their
statutory minimum off-duty period, there may be instances where a
railroad, or an individual railroad manager, may seek to require that
the employee contact the railroad during his or her statutory off-duty
period to obtain the employee's next assignment. In circumstances where
a railroad discriminates against an employee for refusing to violate a
railroad safety law by failing to report after a disruption of rest
caused the employee to not have a statutory minimum off-duty period,
that action could constitute a violation of 49 U.S.C. 20109, enforced
by the U.S. Department of Labor. Where credible evidence indicates that
a railroad disrupted an employee's statutory minimum off-duty period
without the employee having initiated the communication and requested a
return call and yet allowed the employee to report, without restarting
the rest period and providing the required uninterrupted rest, FRA will
consider appropriate enforcement action. FRA expects that railroads
will not attempt to coerce employees into authorizing communications
that disrupted an employee's rest. Where evidence shows that a railroad
made prohibited communications to an employee, because the employee did
not initiate the communication, FRA may consider appropriate
enforcement action under 49 U.S.C. 21103 and 21104. Employees must
report unauthorized communications as an activity on their hours of
service record for the duty tour following the communication. 49 CFR
228.11(b)(9).
4. May the railroad return an employee's communication during the rest
period without violating the prohibition on communication?
    As discussed above in section IV.C.3, the railroad may return an
employee's communication during the rest period without violating the
prohibition on communication, so long as the return communication is
authorized by the employee and on the same topic as the employee's
communication.
5. May the railroad call to alert an employee to a delay (set back) or
displacement?
    As discussed above in section IV.C.3, the railroad may only
communicate with an employee if it is in reply to a communication from
the employee, is authorized by the employee, and is on the same topic
as the employee's communication. Accordingly, the railroad may only
call to alert an employee to a delay (set back) or displacement if the
employee previously communicated with the railroad on that issue during
the rest period and authorized a return communication.
6. May an employee provide advance permission for railroad
communications?
    The BLET and UTU joint comment, as well as an individual commenter,
ask if FRA will permit an employee to preemptively grant his or her
employing railroad the authorization to contact the employee on certain
matters. As was discussed in the previous response, employees may
contact a railroad for any purpose, including establishing a time to
report, and the railroad may return a call initiated by the employee,
if the employee requests a return call, subject to the conditions
discussed above. Because communication by the railroad is only allowed
in response to specific communication initiated by the employee, an
employee may not consent in advance to communication from the railroad.
    It is important to note, however, that if a railroad communicates
with an employee when not requested to do so by the employee, or
discusses with the employee matters beyond the subject of the
employee's initial call, the employee's rest period has been disturbed,
but it is not necessarily a violation of the statute. If an
unauthorized communication is made, railroads have the option of
providing a new statutory minimum off-duty period to avoid violating
the statute.
    Additionally, railroads are not required under the statute to
communicate with their employees during the period of uninterrupted
rest. If a railroad concludes that it is too burdensome to determine in
each instance the specific times within which an employee has requested
a return call, and any limitations on the subject matter of the call,
that railroad may decide simply not to contact any train employees or
signal employees during their statutory minimum off-duty periods or
periods of interim release.

7. Does the prohibition on communication apply to the extended rest
required after 6 or more consecutive days initiating an on-duty period?
    No. The statute is clear that the prohibition applies only to the
statutory minimum off-duty period for signal employees and train
employees as well as to interim releases and additional time off duty
required by subsection (c)(4) for train employees. While one commenter
requests that FRA extend the prohibition to the extended rest required
by Sec. 21103(a)(4), FRA is unable to do so through the interpretation
of the statute, because the statutory language itself specifically
identifies those periods of rest when the railroad must not communicate
with an employee in a way that could reasonably be expected to disrupt
the employee's rest, and the 48- and 72-hour extended-rest periods are
not included within the prohibition.
8. Does the prohibition on communication apply differently to forms of
communication other than phone calls?
    No. The prohibition on communication applies equally to any form of
communication, including but not limited to phone calls, emails, text
messages, voicemail, leaving a message at a hotel, or messages placed
under the door of a hotel room by hotel staff.
9. May the railroad provide information that can be accessed at the
employee's option?
    Yes. FRA encourages provision of information that can be accessed
at the employee's option, especially in the case of unscheduled or
uncertain assignments, so that the employee can plan rest.
    Because the alerts provided by most devices when an email or text
message is received might reasonably be expected to disturb an employee
who may be trying to obtain rest, such communications are generally
prohibited communications. However, where the device in question is
railroad-provided, such that it is only used for railroad business,
employees have the option of turning the device off without impeding
their ability to receive personal messages that they would want to
receive even during rest. Therefore, the provision of information by
text message or email to such a device is not a prohibited
communication. Likewise, a railroad-provided Web site that the employee
may voluntarily access could provide similar information. However, the
employee may not be required to receive any communication of any sort,
to access information of any kind, or to respond in any way to the
information provided.

D. Questions Regarding the 276-Hour Monthly Limit on Service for the
Railroad by Train Employees

    BLET and UTU request clarification on the 276-hour limit on time
spent on duty, waiting for or in deadhead transportation to the place
of final release, or in any other mandatory service for the railroad
during a calendar month. The comment notes FRA's discussion of the
issue in Section IV.C.6 of the Interim Interpretations, in which FRA
stated that completing hazardous materials records is a task that falls
within the category of ``other mandatory service for the carrier[.]''
\20\ The unions request clarification that all Federal recordkeeping
requirements are considered ``other mandatory service'' and, therefore,
will be counted towards an employee's 276-hour limitation for each
month. FRA confirms that if an employee has the duty to carry out a
Federal recordkeeping requirement applicable to a railroad, action by
the employee to carry out the requirement is to be considered ``other
mandatory service'' and, therefore, will be counted towards the
employee's 276-hour limitation for each month. In the Interim
Interpretations, FRA provided the act of completing a record on the
transfer of hazardous material, as required by Transportation Security
Administration regulations, as one example of ``other mandatory service
for a railroad carrier[.]'' This example is simply illustrative of the
sort of activities that are included as ``other mandatory service,''
and not an exception from FRA's general interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 74 FR 30665, 30676 (June 26, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BLET and UTU joint comment then asks if attendance at a rules
class can avoid being considered as other mandatory service for the
carrier if the employee is given the discretion on when to schedule and
complete the training and the railroad simply provides a deadline date
for completion of the training. FRA confirms that this arrangement is
consistent with FRA's position taken in the Interim Interpretations,
and remains FRA's interpretation: if an employee has the opportunity to
schedule such training at a time that is convenient for him or her,
then the time spent training in these circumstances would not be
counted for the purposes of the 276-hour limitation.\21\ Although
training under the given circumstances can be excluded from the 276-
hour monthly limitation, it is nonetheless service for the railroad
carrier and can commingle with covered service. As such, an employee
must communicate the beginning and ending times of such activities with
the railroad, and if a statutory off duty period does not exist between
the activity and covered service the time spent in these activities
will commingle becoming time on duty which will be included in the 276-
hour monthly limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 74 FR 30665, 30675 (June 26, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter, AAR, seeks clarification with respect to an
employee's responsibility to comply with the 276-hour monthly
limitation, and asks that FRA consider an employee to have
``deliberately misrepresented his or her availability'' when
``accepting a full-duty tour after completing an hours of service
record for a prior duty tour showing that the employee does not have
sufficient hours for another full duty tour.'' FRA declines to do so.
As was discussed in Section IV.B.10, above, in response to AAR's
similar comment regarding the ``consecutive-days'' limitations, given
that FRA's enforcement policy with regard to its hours of service
recordkeeping regulation allows railroads to keep ``consecutive-days''
limitation and monthly-service and limbo-time limitation data in a
separate administrative ledger, rather than tracking the data daily on
the record for each individual duty tour, railroads are in the best
position to know whether or not an employee may report to perform
service for the railroad. Additionally, while the penalty provision of
the hours of service laws provides for individual liability for
violation of the hours of service laws, the substantive restrictions
operate on ``a railroad carrier and its officers and agents.''
Employees have the obligation to provide accurate information to
railroads regarding their service, and FRA will consider action as
appropriate under the agency's Statement of Agency Policy Concerning
Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety Laws, 49 CFR part 209,
appendix A, when employees fail to meet this obligation. However,
simply reporting to perform service for the railroad is insufficient to
demonstrate that an employee ``deliberately misrepresented his or her
availability.''
    One individual commenter asks if an individual who works for
multiple railroads will be required to total all service for all of
these railroads to calculate whether that individual has reached the
276-hour limitation. Because the hours of service laws do not restrict
an employee's choice, of his or her own volition, to perform covered
service for multiple railroad carriers

(with the exception of Sec. 21103(a)(4), as discussed above in the
interpretations governing that provision), the 276-hour limitation
applies only to the employee's service for each railroad. Such an
employee would not need to total all service for all of these
railroads, but instead would be subject to a separate 276-hour
limitation for each railroad for which he or she performs covered
service as a train employee. However, as discussed in Section IV.B.7
above, for the purposes of compliance with Sec. 21103(a)(4), employees
are responsible for reporting all service for any railroad carrier to
each of their railroad carrier employers. While FRA has previously
acknowledged its lack of authority to regulate employees who choose to
be employed by multiple railroads, except with regard to Sec.
21103(a)(4), FRA notes that an employee working for multiple railroads
may nonetheless be subject to an excessive risk of human factors
accidents caused by fatigue. Further, FRA does have the authority to
pursue individual liability enforcement action against individuals who
willfully fail to report all service for any railroad carrier or
individuals who perform service for any railroad carrier during the
extended rest required by Sec. 21103(a)(4).

E. Additional Issues Raised by Commenters

1. Statutory Changes
    A large number of individual commenters wrote to express
displeasure with the RSIA and its changes to the previous hours of
service requirements. While FRA was granted some limited regulatory
authority to address hours of service issues, any possible future FRA
regulations, that might adjust the existing limitations or otherwise
alter the application of the new laws, are outside the scope of these
final interpretations of the existing statute.
2. Waivers
    Several commenters seek waivers of the mandatory rest requirement
in Sec. 21103(a)(4) for specific subsets of the rail industry. Whatever
the merits of these waiver requests, they are beyond the scope of this
notice. Petitions for the waivers provided for in Sec. 21103(a)(4),
like petitions for waiver of FRA's safety regulations, are handled by
FRA's Railroad Safety Board. 49 U.S.C. 20103(d); 49 CFR 211.41.
3. Definition of ``Covered Service''
    The BLET and UTU joint comment requests FRA consider all
``yardmaster and similar positions'' covered service. ``Covered
service'' refers to the functions performed by train employees, signal
employees, and dispatching service employees. See 49 U.S.C. 21101,
which defines these functions, and 49 CFR part 228, appendix A, which
defines covered service in reference to these functions. Regardless of
job title, an individual only performs covered service to the extent
that the individual performs a function within one of the three
statutory definitions. Therefore, FRA may not mandate that service
outside of those three functions is covered service, or that employees
with a certain job title will automatically be considered to have
performed covered service.
    The BRS comment requests clarification on what constitutes covered
service for a signal employee. The comment suggests that FRA has been
interpreting the statute to apply only to signal employees who work
with ``energized conductors.'' However, this understanding is
incorrect. While a prior technical bulletin (Federal Railroad
Administration, The Federal Hours of Service Law and Signal Service,
Technical Bulletin G-00-02 (2000)) did refer to ``energized
conductors,'' it did so in the context of demonstrating types of
activities that are and are not covered service, comparing work on
those conductors to work laying cable on a new system. The sentence in
the bulletin was not exclusive, and does not indicate an interpretation
by FRA that a signal system must be ``energized'' in order for work
installing, repairing, or maintaining that system to be considered
covered service.
    One individual commenter asks whether ``mechanical employees'' are
subject to the hours of service requirements. While the statute changed
the definition of ``signal employee'' to include those who are not
employees of a railroad carrier, it did not alter the scope of what
constitutes covered service that would subject an individual to the
limitations within the statute. Accordingly, if service was considered
covered service prior to the passage of the RSIA, that service remains
covered service under the new statute. Additionally, some employees
previously not subject to the hours of service laws that perform
functions considered to be signal covered service but are not employed
by a railroad carrier will now be covered by the hours of service laws.
Employees who are generally considered to be ``mechanical employees''
may perform covered service within any of the three functional
definitions, depending on the functions that the employee actually
performs. For example, a mechanical employee who performs the functions
of a hostler is subject to the hours of service limitations for train
employees in 49 U.S.C. 21103, while a mechanical employee who performs
cab signal tests is subject to the hours of service limitations for
signal employees in 49 U.S.C. 21104 (Sec. 21104).
4. Exclusivity of Signal Service Hours of Service
    The BRS expresses concern that, in categorically exempting signal
employees from any hours of service rules promulgated by any Federal
authority other than FRA, Congress created a ``loophole'' allowing a
vehicle requiring a commercial driver's license to be driven by a
``signal employee'' who does not perform any covered service, with the
result that such an employee is not covered by any hours of service
limitations. The comment correctly notes that Congress did not intend
to remove such individuals entirely from non-FRA Federal hours of
service restrictions.
    The solution is found within the statutory text at Sec. 21104(e),
which states that ``signal employees operating motor vehicles shall not
be subject to any hours of service rules, duty hours, or rest period
rules promulgated by any Federal authority, including the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, other than the Federal Railroad
Administration.'' (Emphasis added.) The subsection headed
``Exclusivity'' applies only to signal employees, and signal employees
are subject to the restrictions on hours of service provided in Sec.
21104(a). Therefore, the statute does not allow an individual subject
to the exemption granted at Sec. 21104(e) not to be subject to Sec.
21104(a). FRA recognizes that this application may result in some
difficulty for an employee who generally works as a signal employee
(``installing, repairing, or maintaining signal systems'') but happens
in a particular duty tour only to drive a vehicle requiring a
commercial driver's license, without performing any functions within
the definition of a ``signal employee'' in that duty tour, because such
an employee remains subject to Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) limitations and recordkeeping requirements. Sec.
21104(a). FRA is open to working with FMCSA in the future to limit or
eliminate this overlap, but such efforts are outside the scope of this
interpretation of the statute.
5. Commuting Time
    The BLET and UTU joint comment requests clarification of how FRA's
prior

treatment of time spent commuting will continue in light of changes to
the statute. FRA allows a 30-minute period for commuting at the away-
from-home terminal, from an employee's point of final release to
railroad-provided lodging, that will not be considered a deadhead, but
rather, commuting time that is part of the statutory off-duty period,
provided that the travel time is 30 minutes or less, including any time
the employee spends waiting for transportation at the point of release
or for a room upon arrival at the lodging location. See Federal
Railroad Administration, Hours of Service Interpretations, Operating
Practice Technical Bulletin OP-04-03 (Feb. 3, 2004). The hypothetical
situation presented in the comment involves a train employee, finally
released at the away-from-home terminal, being instructed to report 10
hours after the time of final release with no further communication
from the railroad. In the hypothetical, the travel time to the
railroad-provided lodging is less than 30 minutes, and the room for the
employee is ready at the time the employee arrives. FRA sees no reason
to depart from the prior interpretation of this situation. Accordingly,
travel time of 30 minutes or less to railroad-provided lodging will be
considered commuting, not deadheading, and therefore the employee's
final release time will be established before the employee is
transported to lodging. Similarly, in this hypothetical, an employee
may depart for his or her reporting point in order to arrive at the
reporting point 10 hours after his or her final release, so long as the
travel time from the place of railroad-provided lodging to the
reporting point is 30 minutes or less and so long as there is no
additional communication from the railroad which interrupts the
employee's off-duty period. Commuting time is considered part of the
statutory off-duty period.
6. Application of Exception to Limitation on Certain Limbo Time
    The RSIA's amendments to Sec. 21103 added a limitation, effective
October 16, 2009, of 30 hours per calendar month, on the amount of time
each employee may spend in a particular category of limbo time--that
is, time that is neither on-duty nor off-duty; namely, when the total
of time on duty time and time spent either waiting for deadhead
transportation or in deadhead transportation from a duty assignment to
the place of final release exceeds 12 consecutive hours. 49 U.S.C.
21103(c)(1)(B). However, the amendments also include an exception from
the limitation at Sec. 21103(c)(2), which excludes delays caused by
casualty, accident, act of God, derailment, major equipment failure
preventing the train from advancing, or other delays caused by a source
unknown and unforeseeable to the railroad carrier or its officer or
agent in charge of the employee when the employee left a terminal.
    In their joint comment, BLET and UTU request clarification on
whether this exception also applies to Sec. 21103(c)(4), which requires
additional rest for train employees if time spent on duty, waiting for
deadhead transportation to a point of final release, and in deadhead
transportation to a point of final release exceeds 12 hours. By the
express language of the statute, the exception does not apply to Sec.
21103(c)(4). The language introducing the exception expressly states
that it applies to ``paragraph (1)'' (i.e., Sec. 21103(c)(1)) and
therefore presumably does not apply to paragraph (4) (i.e., Sec.
21103(c)(4)); had Congress wished for the exception to apply to
paragraph (4), it would have written the law accordingly.

V. Portions of FRA's Interim Interpretations of the Hours of Service
Laws on Which Comments Were Not Received and Which Are Incorporated in
This Final Interpretation Essentially Without Change \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For the present iteration, FRA made a few minor changes to
the text that appeared in the Interim Interpretations. For example,
FRA deleted material that had become obsolete, e.g., references to
the 40-hour per month limit on certain limbo time since that limit
expired on October 15, 2009. In addition, it was necessary to add
language in parentheses to reflect that a reference to sections
``above'' meant sections of the Interim Interpretations. Further,
FRA sometimes added a short ``yes'' or ``no'' answer before the
previously published longer answer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several of FRA's Interim Interpretations received no comments and
are not being revised in these final interpretations. Therefore, they
are still applicable as previously published. These policies and
interpretations are reprinted below for convenience. Those interim
interpretations which are no longer effective as a result of these
final interpretations have been replaced in this section with a
reference to the section in this document where the relevant final
interpretation is discussed. In some cases, the discussion of these
policies and interpretations has been revised to reflect other changes
in FRA's policies and interpretations discussed in this document, or in
light of FRA's subsequent promulgation of its regulations governing the
hours of service for employees providing intercity or commuter
passenger rail transportation. More information relating to the
justification for these policies may be found in FRA's Interim
Interpretations. 74 FR 30665 (June 26, 2009).

A. Questions Related to the Prohibition on Communication by the
Railroad With Train Employees and Signal Employees

1. Does the prohibition on communication with train employees and
signal employees apply to every statutory off-duty period no matter how
long the employee worked?
    Yes, except for the 48- or 72-hour rest requirement. This
prohibition on communication applies to every off-duty period of at
least 10 hours under Sec. 21103(a)(3) or 21104(a)(2) and to any
additional rest required for a train employee when the sum of on-duty
time and limbo time exceeds 12 hours under Sec. 21103(c)(4). For train
employees, it also applies to every lesser off-duty period that
qualifies as an interim release.
2. Is the additional rest for a train employee when on-duty time plus
limbo time exceeds 12 hours mandatory, or may the employee decline it?
    The additional rest is mandatory and may not be declined.
3. If an employee is called to report for duty after having 10 hours of
uninterrupted time off duty, but then receives a call canceling the
call to report before he or she leaves the place of rest, is a new
period of 10 uninterrupted hours off duty required?
    If the employee has not left the place of rest, the employee has
not accrued on-duty time and would still be off duty, with the
exception that the time spent in multiple calls could in certain
circumstances commingle with a future duty tour.
4. What if the call is cancelled just one minute before report-for-duty
time?
    Although the employee will almost certainly have left the place of
rest, the result to this scenario is the same as the result in the
preceding question, in that the employee will not have accrued any time
on duty.
5. What if the employee was told before going off duty to report at the
end of required rest (either 10 hours or 48 or 72 hours after working 6
or 7 days), and is released from that call prior to the report-for-duty
time?
    The answer to this scenario is the same as the answer to the two
preceding questions.

6. Are text messages or email permitted during the rest period?
    (This question is answered in section IV.C.7 and IV.C.8 above.)
7. May the railroad return an employee's call during the rest period
without violating the prohibition on communication?
    (This question is answered in section IV.C.4 above.)
8. May the railroad call to alert an employee to a delay (set back) or
displacement?
    (This question is answered in section IV.C.5 above.)
9. If the railroad violates the requirement of undisturbed rest, is the
undisturbed rest period restarted from the beginning?
    Yes. (But see section IV.C.1, describing the time to which the
prohibition on communication applies.)
10. Should any violation of undisturbed rest be documented by a record?
    Yes. The communication and the time involved in it must be recorded
as an activity on the employee's hours of service record, as required
by 49 CFR 228.11(b)(9) for train employees and 49 CFR 228.11(e)(9) for
signal employees.
    (This question is discussed in more detail in section IV.C.1 and
IV.C.2 above.)
11. Is the additional rest required when on-duty time plus limbo time
exceeds 12 hours (during which communication with an employee is
prohibited) to be measured only in whole hours, so that the additional
rest requirement is not a factor until the total reaches 13 hours?
    No. The additional undisturbed time off that an employee must
receive includes any fraction of an hour that is in excess of 12 hours.

B. Questions Related to the Requirements Applicable to Train Employees
for 48 or 72 Hours Off at the Home Terminal

1. Is a ``Day'' a calendar day or a 24-hour period for the purposes of
this provision?
    (This question is answered in section IV.B.1 above.)
2. If an employee is called for duty but does not work, has the
employee initiated an on-duty period? If there is a call and release?
What if the employee has reported?
    (This question is answered in section IV.B.5 above.)
3. Does deadheading from a duty assignment to the home terminal for
final release on the 6th or 7th day count as a day that triggers the
48-hour or 72-hour rest period requirement?
    (This question is answered in section IV.B.2 and IV.B.3 above.)
4. Does attendance at a mandatory rules class or other mandatory
activity that is not covered service but is non-covered service, count
as initiating an on-duty period on a day?
    No. As in the previous question, the rules class or other mandatory
activity is other service for the carrier (non-covered service) that is
not time on duty and would not constitute initiating an on-duty period
if it is preceded and followed by a statutory off-duty period.
    Likewise, if the rules class or other mandatory activity commingled
with covered service during either the previous duty tour or the next
duty tour after the rules class (because there was not a statutory off-
duty period between them), the rules class or other mandatory activity
would not itself constitute initiating a separate on-duty period, but
would be part of the same on-duty period with which it is commingled.
    This question is discussed in more detail in section IV.B.6 above.
5. If an employee is marked up (available for service) on an extra
board for 6 days but only works 2 days out of the 6, is the 48-hour
rest requirement triggered?
    No. The employee must actually initiate an on-duty period. Being
marked up does not accomplish this unless the employee actually reports
for duty.
6. If an employee initiates an on-duty period on 6 consecutive days,
ending at an away-from-home terminal and then has 28 hours off at an
away-from-home terminal, may the employee work back to the home
terminal? The statute says that after initiating an on-duty period on 6
consecutive days the employee may work back to the home terminal on the
7th day and then must get 72 hours off, but what if the employee had a
day off at the away-from-home terminal after the 6th day?
    The statute says that the employee may work on the 7th day if the
sixth duty tour ends at the away-from-home terminal, but that the
employee must then have 72 hours of time at the home terminal in which
he or she is unavailable for any service for any railroad carrier. If
the employee first has at least 24 hours off at the away-from-home
terminal, the consecutiveness is broken, and the employee has not
initiated an on-duty period for 7 consecutive days and would not be
entitled to 72 hours off duty after getting back to the home terminal.
However, the time off at the away-from-home terminal would not count
toward the 48 hours off duty that the employee must receive after
getting back to the home terminal.
7. May an employee who works 6 consecutive days vacation relief at a
``Temporary Home Terminal'' work back to the regular home terminal on
the 7th day?
    Yes, the employee may initiate an on-duty period on the seventh day
and then receive 72 hours off at the home terminal. FRA believes this
is consistent with the statutory purpose of allowing the employee to
have the extended rest period at home. To that end, although the
statute refers to the home terminal, FRA expects that in areas in which
large terminals include many different reporting points at which
employees go on and off duty, the railroad would make every effort to
return an employee to his or her regular reporting point, so that the
rest period is spent at home.

C. Questions Related to the 276-Hour Monthly Maximum for Train
Employees of Time on Duty, Waiting for or Being in Deadhead
Transportation to Final Release, and in Other Mandatory Service for the
Carrier

1. If an employee reaches or exceeds 276 hours for the calendar month
during a trip that ends at the employee's away-from-home terminal, may
the railroad deadhead the employee home during that month?
    The literal language of the statute might seem to prohibit
deadheading an employee who has already reached or exceeded the 276-
hour monthly maximum, because time spent in deadhead transportation to
final release is part of the time to be calculated toward the 276-hour
maximum, and one of the activities not allowed after the employee
reaches 276 hours. However, the intent of the statute seems to favor
providing extended periods of rest at an employee's home terminal.
Therefore, in most cases, FRA would allow the railroad to deadhead the
employee home in this circumstance, rather than requiring the employee
to remain at an away-from-home terminal until the end of the month.
    FRA expects the railroad to make every effort to plan an employee's
work so that this situation would not regularly arise, and FRA reserves
the right to take enforcement action if a pattern of abuse is apparent.

2. How will FRA apply the 276-hour cap to employees who only
occasionally perform covered service as a train employee, but whose
hours, when combined with their regular shifts in non-covered service,
would exceed 276 hours?
    This provision in the RSIA does not specifically provide any
flexibility for employees who only occasionally perform covered service
as a train employee. Such employees would still be required, as they
are now, to complete an hours of service record for every 24-hour
period in which the employee performed covered service, and the
employee's hours will continue to be limited as required by the statute
for that 24-hour period. See 74 FR 25330, 25348 (May 27, 2009), 49 CFR
228.11(a).
    FRA will likely exercise some discretion in enforcing the 276-hour
monthly limitation with regard to employees whose primary job is not to
perform covered service as a train employee, as most of the hours for
such employees would be comprised of the hours spent in the employee's
regular ``non-covered service'' position, which hours are not otherwise
subject to the limitations of the statute. However, FRA will enforce
the 276-hour limitation with regard to such employees if there is a
perception that a railroad is abusing it.
3. Does the 276-hour count reset at midnight on the first day of a new
month?
    Yes. The statute refers to a calendar month, so when the month
changes, the count resets immediately, as in the following example:

    Employee goes on duty at 6 p.m. on the last day of the month,
having previously accumulated 270 hours for that calendar month. By
midnight, when the month changes, he has worked an additional 6
hours, for a total of 276 hours. The remaining hours of this duty
tour occur in the new month and begin the count toward the 276-hour
maximum for that month, so the railroad is not in violation for
allowing the employee to continue to work.

4. May an employee accept a call to report for duty when he or she
knows there are not enough hours remaining in the employee's 276-hour
monthly limitation to complete the assignment or the duty tour, and it
is not the last day of the month, so the entire duty tour will be
counted toward the total for the current month?
    It is the responsibility of the railroad to track an employee's
hours toward the monthly limitation, so the employee is not the one in
the best position to determine whether he or she has sufficient time
remaining in the monthly limitation to complete a duty tour for which
he or she is called. Therefore, the employee would generally not be in
trouble with FRA for accepting the call, absent evidence that the
employee deliberately misrepresented his or her availability. The
railroad will be in violation of the new hours of service laws if an
employee's cumulative monthly total exceeds 276 hours. However, it
could be a mitigating factor in some situations if the railroad
reasonably believed the employee might be able to complete the
assignment before reaching the 276-hour limitation.

     Scenario 1: Employee is called for duty with 275 hours
already accumulated. It is only the 27th day of the month, so the
entire period will be in the current month. It was probably not
reasonable to assume that any assignment could be completed in the
remaining time.
     Scenario 2: Again the 27th day of the month. This time
the employee has only accumulated 264 hours toward the 276-hour
monthly limitation. In this instance, the railroad may have expected
that the employee could complete the covered service and deadhead to
the home terminal within the remaining time. If that does not
happen, the railroad is in violation, but enforcement discretion or
mitigation of any penalties assessed will be considered if the
railroad made a reasonable decision.

5. What activities constitute ``Other Mandatory Service for the
Carrier,'' which counts towards the 276-hour monthly limitation?
    FRA recognizes that if every activity in which an employee
participates as part of his or her position with the railroad is
counted toward the 276-hour monthly maximum, it could significantly
limit the ability of both the railroad to use the employee, and the
employee to be available for assignments that he or she would wish to
take, especially in the final days of a month. This has been raised as
a matter of concern since enactment of the RSIA.
    In particular, there are activities that may indirectly benefit a
railroad but that are in the first instance necessary for an employee
to maintain the status of prepared and qualified to do the work in
question. In some cases these activities are compensated in some way,
and in some cases not. These activities tend not to be weekly or
monthly requirements, but rather activities that occur at longer
intervals, such as audiograms, vision tests, optional rules refresher
classes, and acquisition of security access cards for hazardous
materials facilities. Most of these activities can be planned by
employees within broad windows to avoid conflicts with work assignments
and maintain alertness. Railroads are most often not aware of when the
employee will accomplish the activity.
    Therefore, for the purposes of this provision, FRA will require
that railroads and employees count toward the monthly maximum those
activities that the railroad not only requires the employee to perform
but also requires the employee to complete immediately or to report at
an assigned time and place to complete, without any discretion in
scheduling on the part of the employee.
    Those activities over which the employee has some discretion and
flexibility of scheduling would not be counted for the purposes of the
276-hour provision, because the employee would be able to schedule them
when he or she is appropriately rested. FRA expects that railroads will
work with their employees as necessary so that they can schedule such
activities and still obtain adequate rest before their next assignment.
    When any service for a railroad carrier is not separated from
covered service by a statutory minimum off-duty period, the other
service will commingle with the covered service, and therefore be
included as time on duty. As time on duty, such time will count towards
the monthly limit of 276 hours.
6. Does time spent documenting transfer of hazardous materials
(Transportation Security Administration requirement) count against the
276-hour monthly maximum?
    Yes. This example is a specific application of the previous
question and response concerning ``other mandatory service for the
carrier.'' The activity of documenting the transfer of a hazardous
material pursuant to a Transportation Security Administration
requirement is mandatory service for the carrier, and a mandatory
requirement of the position for employees whose jobs involve this
function. Although the requirement is Federal, compliance with it is a
normal part of an employee's duty tour, which must be completed as part
of the duty tour, and the employee does not have discretion in when and
where to complete this requirement. Time spent in fulfilling this
requirement is part of the maximum allowed toward the 276-hour monthly
maximum.

D. Other Interpretive Questions Related to the RSIA Amendments to the
Old Hours of Service Laws

1. Does the 30-hour monthly maximum limitation on time awaiting and in
deadhead transportation to final release only apply to time awaiting
and in deadhead transportation after 12 consecutive hours on duty?
    No. Sec. 21103(c)(1)(B) provides that ``[a] railroad may not
require or allow an employee * * * to exceed 30 hours per month--(i)
waiting for deadhead transportation; or (ii) in deadhead transportation
from a duty assignment to a place of final release, following a period
of 12 consecutive hours on duty * * * .'' The intent of this provision
is to prevent situations in which employees are left waiting on trains
for extended periods of time awaiting deadhead transportation, and then
in the deadhead transportation. This purpose would be frustrated if
none of the limbo time is counted toward the limitation unless the on-
duty time for the duty tour is already at or exceeding 12 hours, as an
employee who has accumulated 11 hours and 59 minutes in his or her duty
tour could be subjected to limitless time awaiting and in deadhead
transportation.
    FRA will interpret this provision to include all time spent
awaiting or in deadhead transportation to a place of final release that
occurs more than 12 hours after the beginning of the duty tour, minus
any time spent in statutory interim periods of release. For example, if
an employee is on duty for 11 hours 30 minutes, and then spends an
additional 3 hours awaiting and in deadhead transportation to the point
of final release, for a total duty tour of 14 hours and 30 minutes, 2
hours and 30 minutes of the time spent awaiting or in deadhead
transportation will be counted toward the 30-hour monthly limit.
2. Did the RSIA affect whether a railroad may obtain a waiver of the
provisions of the new hours of service laws?
    Yes, but FRA's authority, delegated from the Secretary, to waive
provisions of the hours of service laws as amended by the RSIA remains
extremely limited. 49 CFR 1.49.
    The RSIA left intact the longstanding, though limited, waiver
authority at 49 U.S.C. 21102(b), which authorizes the exemption of
railroads ``having not more than 15 employees covered by'' the hours of
service laws ``[a]fter a full hearing, for good cause shown, and on
deciding that the exemption is in the public interest and will not
affect safety adversely. The exemption shall be for a specific period
of time and is subject to review at least annually. The exemption may
not authorize a carrier to require or allow its employees to be on duty
more than a total of 16 hours in a 24-hour period.''
    The RSIA amended the one other, even narrower waiver provision in
the old hours of service laws and added three more equally narrow new
waiver provisions. In particular, the RSIA revised 49 U.S.C. 21108,
Pilot projects, originally enacted in 1994, involving joint petitions
for waivers related to pilot projects under 49 U.S.C. 21108, primarily
to provide for waivers of the hours of service laws both as in effect
on the date of enactment of the RSIA and as in effect nine months after
the date of enactment. Waivers under this section are intended to
enable the establishment of one or more pilot projects to demonstrate
the possible benefits of implementing alternatives to the strict
application of the requirements of the hours of service laws, including
requirements concerning maximum on-duty and minimum off-duty periods.
The Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for comment, approve
such waivers for a period not to exceed two years, if the Secretary
determines that such a waiver is in the public interest and is
consistent with railroad safety. Any such waiver, based on a new
petition, may be extended for additional periods of up to two years,
after notice and opportunity for comment. An explanation of any waiver
granted under this section shall be published in the Federal Register.
    The first of the three new waiver provisions, 49 U.S.C.
21109(e)(2), authorizes temporary waivers of that section in order ``if
necessary, to complete'' a pilot project mandated by that subsection.
To date, FRA has not conducted either of the specific pilot projects
mandated by that section, because FRA has not received any waiver
requests from a railroad, and its relevant labor organizations or
affected employees, seeking to participate in these projects. FRA still
seeks to complete these projects, if a railroad were willing to
implement the necessary procedures, and the appropriate waiver could be
designed.
    The second new waiver provision, 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4), provides
limited authority to grant a waiver of one provision that it adds to
the old hours of service laws. That provision is the requirement that
an employee receive 48 hours off duty at the employee's home terminal
after initiating an on-duty period on 6 consecutive days, 72 hours off
duty at the employee's home terminal after initiating an on-duty period
on 7 consecutive days, etc. This provision was discussed in section
IV.B of the Interim Interpretations as well as section IV.B and V.B,
above. FRA may waive this provision, and has done so in a number of
instances in response to petitions received, if a collective bargaining
agreement provides for a different arrangement and that arrangement is
in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety. A railroad
and its labor organization(s) or affected employees should jointly
submit information regarding schedules allowed under their collective
bargaining agreements that would not be permitted under this provision,
and supporting evidence for the conclusion that it is in the interest
of safety. Of course, a waiver is not needed for a schedule that would
not violate this provision. For example, if a schedule provides that an
employee works 4 consecutive days and then has one day off, the
schedule would not violate the new hours of service laws, because the
employee would not have initiated an on-duty period on 6 consecutive
days, so 48 hours off duty would not be required.
    The third and last new waiver provision authorizes waivers of the
prohibition on communication during off-duty periods with respect to
train employees of commuter or intercity passenger railroads if it is
determined that a waiver will not reduce safety and is necessary to
maintain such a railroad's efficient operation and on-time performance.
This waiver provision is no longer applicable, because such employees
are now subject to FRA's hours of service regulation for train
employees providing commuter or intercity rail passenger
transportation, and are therefore no longer subject to the statutory
uninterrupted rest requirement. 49 CFR 228.413.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 2012.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-4732 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Table 4 Annual Agency Burden and Cost  Average, Banking and Trading Program Hours and cost per application Total hours and cost Information Collection Activity Engr GS 13 @$ 26.82/ hr Clerical GS 7 @

$ 12.71/

hr Respon.

hr/ yr Labor cost/ yr Capital Startup Cost O & M Cost Frequency Total hr/ yr Total cost/ yr Answer respondent questions 0.1 0 0.1 2.68 0.00 0.00 460 46.00 1233.72 Review submitted reports 0.1 0 0.1 2.68 0.00 0.00 108 10.80 289.66 Enter data from reports into database 0.1 0 0.1 2.68 0.00 0.00 108 10.80 289.66 Audit reports and records 0.1 0 0.1 2.68 0.00 0.00 108 10.80 289.66 Total 0.4 0 0.4 10.73 0.00 0.00 na 78.40 $ 2,102.69


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47498]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22010]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13371-002]

Town of West Stockbridge; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Exemption from Licensing.
    b. Project No.: 13371-002.
    c. Date Filed: September 21, 2017.
    d. Applicant: Town of West Stockbridge (West Stockbridge).
    e. Name of Project: Shaker Mill Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Williams River, in the Town of West
Stockbridge, Berkshire County, Massachusetts. No federal or tribal
lands would be occupied by project works or located within the project
boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708 (2012), amended by the Hydropower Regulatory
Efficiency Act of 2013, Public Law 113-23, 127 Stat. 493 (2013).
    h. Applicant Contact: Town of West Stockbridge, c/o Earl B.
Moffatt, Chairman, Board of Selectmen, 21 State Line Rd., P.O. Box 525,
West Stockbridge, MA 01266;<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 319.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Watts,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of the Commission's regulations,
if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an
additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an
adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on
its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a
request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the
date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on
the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: November 20, 2017.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy
to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-13371-002.
    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The proposed Shaker Mill Dam Hydroelectric Project would
consists of: (1) An existing 43-foot-long, 16.3-foot-high concrete
gravity dam that includes a 10-foot-wide non-overflow section and a 33-
foot-long ogee spillway section with two discharge pipes, and a crest
elevation of 895.3 feet mean sea level (msl); (2) existing east and
west concrete abutments; (3) existing east and west masonry training
walls that extend downstream of the dam; (4) an existing 32.3-acre
impoundment with a normal water surface elevation of 895.3 feet msl;
(5) an intake structure that includes an existing 12-inch-diameter gate
opening and a proposed 24-inch-diameter gate opening; (6) a proposed
powerhouse with a 3-kilowatt (kW) Kaplan turbine-generator unit and a
6-kW Kaplan turbine-generator unit, for a total installed capacity of 9
kW; (7) two proposed draft tubes to discharge water from the
powerhouse; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
    West Stockbridge proposes to operate the project in a run-of-river
mode with an estimated annual energy production of approximately 67.5
megawatt-hours.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions
to the schedule will be made as appropriate (e.g., if there are no
deficiencies and/or scoping is waived, the schedule would be
shortened).
    Issue Deficiency Letter--November 2017.
    Issue Notice of Acceptance--March 2018.
    Issue Scoping Document--April 2018.
    Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis--June 2018.
    Issue Notice of the Availability of the EA--October 2018.

    Dated: October 5, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22010 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Notice]
[Page 50348-50349]
[DOCID:fr31au07-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-1-006]

Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Compliance
Filing

August 22, 2007.
    Take notice that on August 17, 2007, Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC (FGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, 2nd Substitute Original Sheet No. 206A,
with an effective date of May 1, 2007.
    FGT states that the filing is being made in compliance with the
Commission's Letter Order dated August 2, 2007 in the subject docket.
    FGT states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the
official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR

385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be
filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Protest Date: 5 pm Eastern Time September 4, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17251 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P