[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 218 (Monday, November 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68226-68231]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24723]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2022-0002-N-17]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

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

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA will seek approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified in the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
January 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be submitted on regulations.gov to the docket, Docket No. FRA-
2022-0002-N-14. All comments received will be posted without change to
the docket, including any personal information provided. Please refer
to the assigned OMB control number in any correspondence submitted. FRA
will summarize comments received in response to this notice in a
subsequent notice and include them in its information collection
submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Ms. Senya Waas, Attorney Adviser, at
email: [email protected] or telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8-1320.12. Specifically, FRA
invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR regarding:
(1) whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA
to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities
will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the
burden of the information collection activities, including the validity
of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3)
ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information being collected; and (4) ways for FRA to minimize the
burden of information collection activities on the public, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal statutes and regulations mandate. In summary,
FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1)
reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection
requirements in a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such
information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to
retrieve and produce information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Positive Train Control (PTC) and Other Signal Systems.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0553.
    Abstract: FRA's regulations require that both railroads and PTC
vendors and suppliers notify FRA of certain PTC system errors and
malfunctions. 49 CFR 236.1023. For example, railroads must maintain a
database of all safety-relevant hazards identified in their PTC Safety
Plans (PTCSP) and those that had not previously been identified in
their PTCSPs. 49 CFR 236.1023(e). If the frequency of a safety-relevant
hazard exceeds the thresholds in a railroad's PTCSP, or such hazard has
not been previously identified in a railroad's risk analysis, then the
railroad must notify FRA of the failure, malfunction, or defective
condition that decreased or eliminated the safety functionality of the
railroad's PTC system. 49 CFR 236.1023(e)(1). In addition, FRA's
regulations require PTC vendors and suppliers to notify FRA of any
safety-relevant failure, defective condition, or previously
unidentified hazard discovered by the vendor or supplier and the
identify of each affected and notified railroad. 49 CFR 236.1023(h)(2).
Currently, each railroad or PTC vendor and supplier that must submit
notifications of such a failure, malfunction, or defective condition
does so by emailing the information to an FRA inbox
([email protected]). The information is sent in
different formats by each railroad or PTC supplier and vendor because
there is currently no standardized form.
    Therefore, FRA is hereby proposing to standardize the reporting
process required by 49 CFR 236.1023(e)(1), (h), and (f) by creating the
Errors and Malfunctions Notification Form (Form FRA F 6180.179), which
is one part of the existing information collection request under OMB
Control No. 2130-0553. This proposed Form FRA F 6180.179 will be in an
Excel format and will make it easier for the entities to notify FRA of
each applicable failure, malfunction, or defective condition, and for
FRA to synthesize and act on the reported failure. The Errors and
Malfunctions Notification Form would not change the requirements that
each railroad or PTC supplier and vendor currently must follow to
notify FRA of each reportable failure, malfunction, or defective
condition. See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (h), and (f). The proposed
Form FRA F 6180.179 would be submitted to
[email protected] within the 15-day deadline under 49
CFR 236.1023(f)(1).
    With the current reporting process, FRA estimated that each
notification would take 8 hours to prepare. With the new standardized
Form, FRA estimates that, on average, each notification will reduce to
7.5 hours to prepare if the

railroad or PTC supplier or vendor uses the FRA-provided Excel Form.
This estimate is based on the fact that the proposed new Form FRA F
6180.179 offers drop-down menus that would allow railroads or PTC
suppliers and vendors to select an answer from an established list,
instead of creating each answer from scratch. The revised burden would
also account for the review of the instructions in the FRA-provided
Excel Form. Thus, FRA estimates that by creating this Form, the total
annual burden hours will decrease by 14 hours.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The current inventory exhibits a total burden of 51,993
hours and 4,567,826 responses, while the total burden in this notice
is 51,979 hours and 4,567,826 responses. The decrease in burden is
due to a program change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Request: Revision to a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.152 (existing form) and FRA F 6180.179 (new
form).
    Respondent Universe: 742 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
           CFR section                   Respondent universe           Total annual responses        Average time per      Total annual     dollar cost
                                                                                response          burden hours     equivalent
                                                                   (A)..........................  (B)...................     (C) = A * B  (D) = C * wage
                                                                                rates \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
235.6(c)--Expedited application    42 railroads..................  10 expedited applications....  5 hours...............              50          $3,850
 for approval of certain changes
 described in this section.
    --Copy of expedited            42 railroads..................  10 copies....................  30 minutes............               5             385
     application to labor union.
    --Railroad letter rescinding   42 railroads..................  1 letter.....................  6 hours...............               6             462
     its request for expedited
     application of certain
     signal system changes.
    --Revised application for      42 railroads..................  1 application................  5 hours...............               5             385
     certain signal system
     changes.
    --Copy of railroad revised     42 railroads..................  1 copy.......................  30 minutes............             0.5              39
     application to labor union.
236.1--Railroad-maintained signal  700 railroads.................  25 plan changes..............  15 minutes............            6.25             481
 plans at all interlockings,
 automatic signal locations, and
 controlled points, and updates
 to ensure accuracy.
236.15--Designation of automatic   700 railroads.................  10 timetable instructions....  30 minutes............               5             385
 block, traffic control, train
 stop, train control, cab signal,
 and PTC territory in timetable
 instructions.
236.18--Software management        2 railroads...................  2 plans......................  160 hours.............             320          24,640
 control plan--New railroads.
236.23(e)--The names,              700 railroads.................  2 modifications..............  1 hour................               2             154
 indications, and aspects of
 roadway and cab signals shall be
 defined in the carrier's
 Operating Rule Book or Special
 Instructions. Modifications
 shall be filed with FRA within
 30 days after such modifications
 become effective.
236.587(d)--Certification and      742 railroads.................  4,562,500 train departures...  5 seconds.............        6,336.81         487,934
 departure test results.
236.905(a)--Railroad Safety        2 railroads...................  2 RSPPs......................  40 hours..............              80           6,160
 Program Plan (RSPP)--New
 railroads.
236.913(a)--Filing and approval    742 railroads.................  1 joint plan.................  2,000 hours...........           2,000         240,000
 of a joint Product Safety Plan
 (PSP).
(c)(1)--Informational filing/      742 railroads.................  0.5 filings/approval           50 hours..............              25           1,925
 petition for special approval.                                     petitions.
(c)(2)--Response to FRA's request  742 railroads.................  0.25 data calls/documents....  5 hours...............            1.25              96
 for further data after
 informational filing.
(d)(1)(ii)--Response to FRA's      742 railroads.................  0.25 data calls/documents....  1 hour................            0.25              19
 request for further information
 within 15 days after receipt of
 the Notice of Product
 Development (NOPD).
(d)(1)(iii)--Technical             742 railroads.................  0.25 technical consultations.  5 hours...............            1.25              96
 consultation by FRA with the
 railroad on the design and
 planned development of the
 product.
(d)(1)(v)--Railroad petition to    742 railroads.................  0.25 petitions...............  1 hour................            0.25              19
 FRA for final approval of NOPD.
(d)(2)(ii)--Response to FRA's      742 railroads.................  1 request....................  50 hours..............              50           3,850
 request for additional
 information associated with a
 petition for approval of PSP or
 PSP amendment.
(e)--Comments to FRA on railroad   742 railroads.................  0.5 comments/letters.........  10 hours..............               5             385
 informational filing or special
 approval petition.
(h)(3)(i)--Railroad amendment to   742 railroads.................  2 amendments.................  20 hours..............              40           3,080
 PSP.
(j)--Railroad field testing/       742 railroads.................  1 field test document........  100 hours.............             100           7,700
 information filing document.
236.917(a)--Railroad retention of  13 railroads with PSP.........  13 PSP safety results........  160 hours.............           2,080         160,160
 records: results of tests and
 inspections specified in the PSP.
(b)--Railroad report that          13 railroads..................  1 report.....................  40 hours..............              40           3,080
 frequency of safety-relevant
 hazards exceeds threshold set
 forth in PSP.
(b)(3)--Railroad final report to   13 railroads..................  1 report.....................  10 hours..............              10             770
 FRA on the results of the
 analysis and countermeasures
 taken to reduce the frequency of
 safety-relevant hazards.
236.919(a)--Railroad Operations    13 railroads..................  1 OMM update.................  40 hours..............              40           3,080
 and Maintenance Manual (OMM).
(b)--Plans for proper              13 railroads..................  1 plan update................  40 hours..............              40           3,080
 maintenance, repair, inspection,
 and testing of safety-critical
 products.
(c)--Documented hardware,          13 railroads..................  1 revision...................  40 hours..............              40           3,080
 software, and firmware revisions
 in OMM.
236.921 and 236.923(a)--Railroad   13 railroads..................  1 program....................  40 hours..............              40           3,080
 Training and Qualification
 Program.
236.923(b)--Training records       13 railroads..................  350 records..................  10 minutes............           58.33           4,491
 retained in a designated
 location and available to FRA
 upon request.

236.1001(b)--A railroad's          38 railroads..................  1 rule or instruction........  40 hours..............              40           4,800
 additional or more stringent
 rules than prescribed under 49
 CFR part 236, subpart I.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1005(b)(4)(i)-(ii)--A                                    The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
 railroad's submission of
 estimated traffic projections
 for the next 5 years, to support
 a request, in a PTC
 Implementation Plan (PTCIP) or a
 request for amendment (RFA), not
 to implement a PTC system based
 on reductions in rail traffic.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(4)(iii)--A railroad's request  7 Class I railroads...........  1 exception request..........  40 hours..............              40           3,080
 for a de minimis exception, in a
 PTCIP or an RFA, based on a
 minimal quantity of poisonous-by-
 inhalation materials traffic.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(5)--A railroad's request to                              The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
 remove a line from its PTCIP
 based on the sale of the line to
 another railroad and any related
 request for FRA review from the
 acquiring railroad.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g)(1)(i)--A railroad's request    38 railroads..................  45 rerouting extension         8 hours...............             360          27,720
 to temporarily reroute trains                                      requests.
 not equipped with a PTC system
 onto PTC-equipped tracks and
 vice versa during certain
 emergencies.
(g)(1)(ii)--A railroad's written   38 railroads..................  45 written or telephonic       2 hours...............              90           6,930
 or telephonic notice of the                                        notices.
 conditions necessitating
 emergency rerouting and other
 required information under
 236.1005(i).
(g)(2)--A railroad's temporary     38 railroads..................  720 requests.................  8 hours...............           5,760         443,520
 rerouting request due to planned
 maintenance not exceeding 30
 days.
(h)(1)--A response to any request  38 railroads..................  10 requests..................  2 hours...............              20           1,540
 for additional information from
 FRA, prior to commencing
 rerouting due to planned
 maintenance.
(h)(2)--A railroad's request to    38 railroads..................  160 requests.................  8 hours...............           1,280          98,560
 temporarily reroute trains due
 to planned maintenance exceeding
 30 days.
236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)--A          262 railroads.................  5 reports....................  16 hours..............              80           6,160
 progress report due by December
 31, 2020, and by December 31,
 2022, from any Class II or III
 railroad utilizing a temporary
 exception under this section.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(5)(vii)--A railroad's request                             The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 to utilize different yard
 movement procedures, as part of
 a freight yard movements
 exception.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1007(b)(1)--For any high-                                 The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 speed service over 90 miles per
 hour (mph), a railroad's PTC
 Safety Plan (PTCSP) must
 additionally establish that the
 PTC system was designed and will
 be operated to meet the fail-
 safe operation criteria in
 appendix C.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c)--An HSR-125 document           38 railroads..................  1 HSR-125 document...........  3,200 hours...........           3,200         384,000
 accompanying a host railroad's
 PTCSP, for operations over 125
 mph.
(c)(1)--A railroad's request for   38 railroads..................  0.33 requests................  8,000 hours...........           2,640         203,280
 approval to use foreign service
 data, prior to submission of a
 PTCSP.
(d)--A railroad's request in a     38 railroads..................  1 request....................  1,000 hours...........           1,000         120,000
 PTCSP that FRA excuse compliance
 with one or more of this
 section's requirements.
236.1009(a)(2)--A PTCIP if a       264 railroads.................  1 PTCIP......................  535 hours.............             535          64,200
 railroad becomes a host railroad
 of a main line requiring the
 implementation of a PTC system,
 including the information under
 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2) and 49 CFR
 236.1011.
(a)(3)--Any new PTCIPs jointly     264 railroads.................  1 joint PTCIP................  267 hours.............             267          32,040
 filed by a host railroad and a
 tenant railroad.
(b)(1)--A host railroad's          264 railroads.................  1 document...................  8 hours...............               8             616
 submission, individually or
 jointly with a tenant railroad
 or PTC system supplier, of an
 unmodified Type Approval.
(b)(2)--A host railroad's          264 railroads.................  1 PTCDP......................  2,000 hours...........           2,000         154,000
 submission of a PTC Development
 Plan (PTCDP) with the
 information required under 49
 CFR 236.1013, requesting a Type
 Approval for a PTC system that
 either does not have a Type
 Approval or has a Type Approval
 that requires one or more
 variances.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)--A host railroad's submission                                   The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015.
 of a PTCSP.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)(3)--Any request for full or    38 railroads..................  10 confidentiality requests..  8 hours...............              80           6,160
 partial confidentiality of a
 PTCIP, Notice of Product Intent
 (NPI), PTCDP, or PTCSP.

(h)--Any responses or documents    38 railroads..................  36 interviews and documents..  4 hours...............             144          11,088
 submitted in connection with
 FRA's use of its authority to
 monitor, test, and inspect
 processes, procedures,
 facilities, documents, records,
 design and testing materials,
 artifacts, training materials
 and programs, and any other
 information used in the design,
 development, manufacture, test,
 implementation, and operation of
 the PTC system, including
 interviews with railroad
 personnel.
(j)(2)(iii)--Any additional        38 railroads..................  1 set of additional            400 hours.............             400          30,800
 information provided in response                                   information.
 to FRA's consultations or
 inquiries about a PTCDP or PTCSP.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1011(a)-(b)--PTCIP content                          The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021.
 requirements.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)--Any public comment on         38 railroads..................  2 public comments............  8 hours...............              16           1,232
 PTCIPs, NPIs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1013--PTCDP and NPI content                      The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(b), (c), and (e) and 236.1021.
 requirements.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1015--Any new host railroad's  264 railroads.................  1 PTCSP......................  8,000 hours...........           8,000         616,000
 PTCSP meeting all content
 requirements under 49 CFR
 236.1015.
(g)--A PTCSP for a PTC system      38 railroads..................  0.33 PTCSPs..................  3,200 hours...........           1,056          81,312
 replacing an existing certified
 PTC system.
(h)--A quantitative risk           38 railroads..................  0.33 assessments.............  800 hours.............             264          20,328
 assessment, if FRA requires one
 to be submitted.
236.1017(a)--An independent third- 38 railroads..................  0.33 assessments.............  1,600 hours...........             528          63,360
 party assessment, if FRA
 requires one to be conducted and
 submitted.
(b)--A railroad's written request  38 railroads..................  0.33 written requests........  8 hours...............            2.64             203
 to confirm whether a specific
 entity qualifies as an
 independent third party.
    --Further information          38 railroads..................  0.33 sets of additional        20 hours..............             6.6             508
     provided to FRA upon request.                                  information.
(d)--A request not to provide      38 railroads..................  0.33 requests................  20 hours..............             6.6             508
 certain documents otherwise
 required under Appendix F for an
 independent, third-party
 assessment.
(e)--A request for FRA to accept   38 railroads..................  0.33 requests................  32 hours..............           10.56             813
 information certified by a
 foreign regulatory entity for
 purposes of 49 CFR 236.1017 and/
 or 236.1009(i).
236.1019(b)--A request for a       38 railroads..................  1 MTEA.......................  160 hours.............             160          12,320
 passenger terminal main line
 track exception (MTEA).
(c)(1)--A request for a limited    38 railroads..................  1 request and/or plan........  160 hours.............             160          12,320
 operations exception (based on
 restricted speed, temporal
 separation, or a risk mitigation
 plan).
(c)(2)--A request for a limited    10 railroads..................  1 request....................  160 hours.............             160          12,320
 operations exception for a non-
 Class I, freight railroad's
 track.
(c)(3)--A request for a limited    7 railroads...................  1 request....................  160 hours.............             160          12,320
 operations exception for a Class
 I railroad's track.
(d)--A railroad's collision        38 railroads..................  0.33 collision hazard          50 hours..............            16.5           1,271
 hazard analysis in support of an                                   analysis.
 MTEA, if FRA requires one to be
 conducted and submitted.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)--Any temporal separation                                     The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1).
 procedures utilized under the 49
 CFR 236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1021(a)-(d)--Any RFA to a      38 railroads..................  10 RFAs......................  160 hours.............           1,600         123,200
 railroad's PTCIP or PTCDP.
(e)--Any public comments, if an    5 interested parties..........  10 RFA public comments.......  16 hours..............             160          12,320
 RFA includes a request for
 approval of a discontinuance or
 material modification of a
 signal or train control system
 and a Federal Register notice is
 published.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(l)--Any jointly filed RFA to a                             The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1021(a)-(d) and (m).
 PTCDP or PTCSP.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(m)--Any RFA to a railroad's       38 railroads..................  15 RFAs......................  80 hours..............           1,200          92,400
 PTCSP.
236.1023(a)--A railroad's PTC      38 railroads..................  2 updated lists..............  8 hours...............              16           1,232
 Product Vendor List, which must
 be continually updated.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(1)--All contractual                                      The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 arrangements between a railroad
 and its hardware and software
 suppliers or vendors for certain
 immediate notifications.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(2)-(3)--A vendor's or          10 vendors or suppliers.......  10 notifications.............  8 hours...............              80           6,160
 supplier's notification, upon
 receipt of a report of any
 safety-critical failure of its
 product, to any railroads using
 the product.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c)(1)-(2)--A railroad's process                             The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 and procedures for taking action
 upon being notified of a safety-
 critical failure or a safety-
 critical upgrade, patch,
 revision, repair, replacement,
 or modification, and a
 railroad's configuration/
 revision control measures, set
 forth in its PTCSP.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)--A railroad's submission, to   38 railroads..................  2.5 notifications............  16 hours..............              40           3,080
 the applicable vendor or
 supplier, of the railroad's
 procedures for action upon
 notification of a safety-
 critical failure, upgrade,
 patch, or revision to the PTC
 system and actions to be taken
 until it is adjusted, repaired,
 or replaced.
(e)--A railroad's database of all  38 railroads..................  38 database updates..........  16 hours..............             608          46,816
 safety-relevant hazards, which
 must be maintained after the PTC
 system is placed in service.
(e)(1)--A railroad's notification  38 railroads..................  8 notifications..............  7.5 hours.............              60           4,620
 to the vendor or supplier and
 FRA if the frequency of a safety-
 relevant hazard exceeds the
 threshold set forth in the PTCDP
 and PTCSP, and about the
 failure, malfunction, or
 defective condition that
 decreased or eliminated the
 safety functionality--Form FRA F
 6180.179--Errors and
 Malfunctions Notification
 (Revised requirement).
(e)(2)--Continual updates about    38 railroads..................  1 update.....................  8 hours...............               8             616
 any and all subsequent failures.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f)--Any notifications that must                           The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h).
 be submitted to FRA under 49 CFR
 236.1023.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g)--A railroad's and vendor's or  38 railroads..................  0.5 reports..................  40 hours..............              20           1,540
 supplier's report, upon FRA
 request, about an investigation
 of an accident or service
 difficulty due to a
 manufacturing or design defect
 and their corrective actions.
(h)--A PTC system vendor's or      10 vendors or suppliers.......  20 reports...................  7.5 hours.............             150          11,550
 supplier's reports of any safety-
 relevant failures, defective
 conditions, previously
 unidentified hazards,
 recommended mitigation actions,
 and any affected railroads--Form
 FRA F 6180.179--Errors and
 Malfunctions Notification
 (Revised requirement).
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(k)--A report of a failure of a                  The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h) and 49 CFR part 233.
 PTC system resulting in a more
 favorable aspect than intended
 or other condition hazardous to
 the movement of a train,
 including the reports required
 under part 233.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1029(b)(4)--A report of an en  150 host and tenant railroads.  1,000 reports................  30 minutes............             500          38,500
 route failure, other failure, or
 cut out to a designated railroad
 officer of the host railroad.
Form FRA F 6180.152--49 U.S.C.     38 railroads..................  146 reports..................  32 hours..............           4,672         359,744
 20157(m) and 49 CFR 236.1029(h)--
 Quarterly Report of PTC System
 Performance (*Revised
 requirement and updated form*).
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1033--Communications and                                 The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015.
 security requirements.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1035(a)-(b)--A railroad's      38 railroads..................  10 requests..................  40 hours..............             400          30,800
 request for authorization to
 field test an uncertified PTC
 system and any responses to
 FRA's testing conditions.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1037(a)(1)-(2)--Records                                  The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015.
 retention.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)(3)-(4)--Records retention....                           The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1039 and 236.1043(b).
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)--Results of inspections and    38 railroads..................  800 records..................  1 hour................             800          61,600
 tests specified in a railroad's
 PTCSP and PTCDP.
(c)--A contractor's records        20 contractors................  1,600 records................  10 minutes............          266.67          20,534
 related to the testing,
 maintenance, or operation of a
 PTC system maintained at a
 designated office.
(d)(3)--A railroad's final report  38 railroads..................  8 final reports..............  160 hours.............           1,280          98,560
 of the results of the analysis
 and countermeasures taken to
 reduce the frequency of safety-
 related hazards below the
 threshold set forth in the PTCSP.
236.1039(a)-(c), (e)--A            38 railroads..................  2 OMM updates................  10 hours..............              20           1,540
 railroad's PTC OMM, which must
 be maintained and available to
 FRA upon request.
(d)--A railroad's identification   38 railroads..................  1 identified new component...  1 hour................               1              77
 of a PTC system's safety-
 critical components, including
 spare equipment.
236.1041(a)-(b) and 236.1043(a)--  38 railroads..................  2 programs...................  10 hours..............              20           1,540
 A railroad's PTC Training and
 Qualification Program (i.e., a
 written plan).
236.1043(b)--Training records      150 host and tenant railroads.  150 PTC training record        1 hour................             150          11,550
 retained in a designated                                           databases.
 location and available to FRA
 upon request.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total........................  N/A...........................  4,567,826 responses..........  N/A...................          51,979       4,328,077
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 4,567,826.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2019 STB Full
Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate employee group
hourly wage rate that includes a 75-percent overhead charge. For
Executives, Officials, and Staff Assistants, this cost amounts to
$120 per hour. For Professional/Administrative staff, this cost
amounts to $77 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 51,979 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$4,328,077.
    FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or
sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection
of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control
number.
    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520; 49 U.S.C. 20157.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-24723 Filed 11-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64413-64416]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26855]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65538; File No. SR-BX-2011-070]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
BOX Fee Schedule

October 12, 2011.
    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 October 5, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``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 prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed
rule change pursuant to 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 from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') proposes to amend the Fee
Schedule of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX''). Changes
to the BOX Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective
upon filing. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.

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 self-regulatory organization
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. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    As set forth in greater detail below, the Exchange proposes several
changes to the BOX Fee Schedule to reflect the implementation of fees
for Professional \5\ accounts, and for the BOX Solicitation Auction and
Facilitation Auction mechanisms.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65036 (August 4,
2011) 76 FR 49517 (August 10, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-049) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness To Adopt a Definition of
``Professional'' and Require That Professional Orders Be
Appropriately Marked by BOX Options Participants). See also BOX
Trading Rules Chapter I, Section 1(a)(52). The term ``Professional''
means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in
securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65387 (September 23,
2011) (SR-BX-2011-034) (Order Approving Amending the BOX Trading
Rules to Establish Facilitation and Solicitation Auction
Mechanisms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1 Trading Fees for Public Customer Accounts
    Currently, the trading fee for Public Customers in Section 1a of
the BOX Fee Schedule is $0.15 per executed contract of an Improvement
Order for a Public Customer that is not submitted as a Customer Price
Improvement Period Order for the Price Improvement Period (``non-CPO''
in the ``PIP'').\7\ The Exchange proposes to add to Section 1a the same
$0.15 fee per executed contract for Responses in the Solicitation and
Facilitation Auction mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Price Improvement Period (``PIP'') in Chapter V, Section
18 of the BOX Trading Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the fee in Section 1b is $0.25 per executed contract
for Primary Improvement Orders for a Public Customer. The Exchange
proposes to add to Section 1b a $0.25 fee per executed contract for
Facilitation Orders and Solicitation Orders for Public Customers.
    Currently, the fee for Public Customers in Section 1c is $0.07 per
executed contract for all non-PIP transactions. The Exchange proposes
to amend Section 1c to expand this applicable fee to all non-Auction
Transactions and define the term ``Auction Transactions'' to include
all transactions executed through PIP, the Solicitation Auction
mechanism, and the Facilitation Auction mechanism.
Section 2 Trading Fees for Professional Accounts
    The Exchange proposes to add the Trading Fees For Professional
Accounts as Section 2 of the BOX Fee Schedule and renumber the Trading
Fees For Broker Dealer Proprietary Accounts as Section 3 and Market
Maker Trading Fees as Section 4.
    The Exchange proposes that Professional accounts pay the same fees
as set forth for Public Customers in Section 1 of the Fee Schedule for
all Auction Transactions. The Exchange also proposes that Professional
accounts pay $0.20 per executed contract for all non-Auction
Transactions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ By comparison to Professional accounts, Trading Fees for
non-Auction Transactions are $0.07 per executed contract for Public
Customers and $0.40 per executed contract for Broker-Dealer
Proprietary Accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add Professional to the account types
listed in Section 7a of the Fee Schedule that specifies the Fees for
Adding Liquidity and Credits for Removing Liquidity in transactions on
the BOX Book (non-Auction Transactions). These Fees and Credits for
non-Auction Transactions are the same across all account types, now
proposed to include Professional accounts, and the Exchange is not
proposing any change to these Fees and Credits at this time.
Section 3 Broker Dealer Fees and Section 4 Market Maker Fees
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to correspond with
the proposed change in Section 1c of the Fee Schedule to change
references to PIP transactions to Auction Transactions so as to include
transactions in the Solicitation and Facilitation Auction mechanisms.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes that broker-dealers and market
makers pay the same fees for non-Auction Transactions as they currently
pay for non-PIP transactions. No change to

these fees is proposed. Further, the Exchange proposes to amend
Sections 7a, 7b, and 7d to change references to the transaction fees in
certain sections of the Fee Schedule to correspond to the renumbered
Sections 3 and 4 of the Fee Schedule, as outlined above.
Section 7e Transactions in BOX Facilitation and Solicitation Auction
    The Exchange proposes to add Section 7e to the Fee Schedule to
implement Fees for Adding Liquidity and Credits for Removing Liquidity
in the BOX Facilitation and Solicitation Auction mechanisms. The fees
and credits in Section 7e shall be applied to transactions in these
respective mechanisms, in addition to applicable transaction fees as
described in Section 1 through 4 of the proposed Fee Schedule. Agency
Orders submitted in Facilitation or Solicitation will receive the
`removal' credit. Facilitation Orders, Solicited Orders, or Responses,
respectively, will be charged the `add' fee per executed contract. The
Exchange proposes that the Fee for Adding Liquidity and the Credit for
Removing Liquidity be $0.30 per contract for all classes in these
respective auction mechanisms, and be assessed the same across all
account types: Market Maker, Firm, Public Customer, and Professional.
Section 7f Tiered Fee for Initiating Participants Based Upon Average
Daily Volume (ADV) of BOX Auction Transactions
    Currently, Section 7d of the Fee Schedule provides for a tiered fee
to be applied for PIP transactions by Initiating Participants. Greater
ADV in PIP transactions results in a reduced PIP transaction fee. The
Exchange proposes to amend this tiered fee so as to apply all of an
Initiating Participant's Auction Transactions (including transactions
in the Facilitation and Solicitation Auctions, not just those in the
PIP) to the calculation of the Initiating Participant's ADV to
determine the transaction fee applicable to the Participant. The
Exchange also proposes to renumber this tiered fee provision as new
Section 7f. No changes to the ADV or tiered fee rates are proposed.
Section 8 Eligible Orders Routed to an Away Exchange
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 8 of the BOX Fee
Schedule to delete its current routing fees and adopt a $0.50 per
contract routing fee for Professional accounts.\9\ The Exchange
proposes this routing fee, in part to offset the various costs BOX
incurs in providing routing services. BOX uses third-party broker-
dealers to route orders to other exchanges and incurs charges for each
order routed to an away market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ By comparison, BOX does not route broker-dealer proprietary
orders and thus does not assess them any routing fees. Additionally,
BOX routes Public Customer orders to Away Exchanges at no charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange
believes the proposal is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees,
credits, and other charges among BOX Options Participants. The proposed
changes will allow the fees charged on BOX to remain competitive with
other exchanges as well as apply such fees in a manner which is
equitable among all BOX Participants. The Exchange believes the
proposed transaction fees and credits are fair and reasonable and must
be competitive with fees and credits in place on other exchanges.
Further, the Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace
impacts the fees and credits present on BOX today and influences this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auction Mechanism Fees
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and non-discriminatory to
assess the proposed fees for the BOX Solicitation and Facilitation
Auction mechanisms because the proposed fee for adding liquidity and
credit for removing liquidity will apply uniformly to all categories of
participants, across all account types, now proposed to include
Professional accounts. The Exchange also believes the proposed fees for
the BOX auction mechanisms to be reasonable. BOX operates within a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to any of eight other competing venues if they deem
fees at a particular venue to be excessive. The fee structure proposed
for these auction mechanisms, in particular, the proposed credit for
removing liquidity, aims to attract additional order flow to these BOX
auction mechanisms, providing greater potential liquidity within the
overall BOX market to the benefit of all BOX market participants.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and non-discriminatory to
provide Initiating Participants a tiered fee structure related to its
participation in BOX Auction Transactions. The proposed fee structure
related to trading activity in BOX Auction Transactions is available to
all BOX Options Participants and they may choose to trade on BOX to
take advantage of the discounted fees for doing so, or not. The
Exchange also believes the proposed fees for the BOX auction mechanisms
to be reasonable. BOX has had this same tiered fee structure in place
related to PIP transactions by Initiating Participants. Participants
will benefit from the opportunity to now aggregate their trading in the
BOX Facilitation and Solicitation Auction mechanisms with their PIP
transactions to more easily attain a discounted fee tier. As noted
above, BOX operates within a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to any of eight other
competing venues if they deem fees at a particular venue to be
excessive. The tiered fee structure proposed for trading in the BOX
auction mechanisms aims to attract additional order flow to BOX,
providing greater potential liquidity within the overall BOX market,
its auction mechanisms, to the benefit of all BOX market participants.
Trading Fees for Professional Accounts
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and non-discriminatory to
assess fees for Professional accounts that are the same in the
Facilitation and Solicitation Auction Transactions as those fees for
Public Customers. Also, as stated above, the Exchange believes it is
equitable, reasonable, and non-discriminatory to assess Professional
accounts the same liquidity related fees or credits, as those paid to
or paid by Public Customers, Broker-Dealer Proprietary Trading accounts
and Market Makers. Within these Auction Transactions, Professionals
retain priority as Public Customer orders, and the Exchange believes
that such orders benefit from the BOX fees and credits as structured
within Auction Transactions. The proposed fees for Professional
accounts for adding liquidity and credit for removing liquidity are
equitable and non-discriminatory because such fees and credits apply
uniformly to all categories of participants and across all account
types.
    Further, the Exchange believes the proposed $0.20 fee per executed
contract for Professional accounts in non-Auction Transactions to be
equitable, reasonable, and not unfairly discriminatory. As stated, BOX
operates

within a highly competitive market. BOX, however, does not assess
ongoing systems access fees, ongoing fees for access to BOX market
data, or fees related to order cancellation. Professional accounts,
while Public Customers by virtue of not being broker-dealers, generally
engage in trading activity more similar to broker-dealer proprietary
trading accounts (more than 390 orders per day on average). This level
of trading activity draws on a greater amount of BOX system resources
than that of non-Professional Public Customers. Simply, the more orders
submitted to BOX, the more messages sent to and received from BOX, the
more orders potentially routed to away exchanges, and the more BOX
system resources utilized. This level of trading activity by
Professional accounts results in greater ongoing operational costs to
BOX. As such, BOX aims to recover its costs by assessing Professional
accounts the same fees that it assesses to other BOX market
participants in Facilitation and Solicitation Auction Transactions, and
a market competitive fee proposed for non-Auction Transactions.
Generally, competing options exchanges assess Professionals fees at
rates more comparable to fees charged to broker-dealers. Sending orders
to and trading on BOX are entirely voluntary. Under these
circumstances, BOX transaction fees must be competitive to attract
order flow, execute orders, and grow its market. As such, BOX believes
its trading fees proposed for Professional accounts are fair and
reasonable. While comparably higher transaction fees than those
assessed to Public Customers, BOX is assessing Professional accounts
transaction fees at a rate ($0.20) lower than that charged to broker-
dealer proprietary trading firms.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge Public Customers lower fees for non-Auction
Transactions than Professional accounts that are more akin to Broker-
Dealer Proprietary Trading Accounts. The securities markets generally,
and BOX in particular, have historically aimed to improve markets for
investors and develop various features within the market structure for
customer benefit. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed non-
Auction Transaction fees for Professional accounts, as compared to
Public Customer transaction fees, is appropriate and not unfairly
discriminatory.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to adopt a
fee for routing Professional customer orders to various markets is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory in that the fee
will allow BOX to recoup its costs attendant with offering optional
routing services. BOX uses third-party broker-dealers to route orders
to other exchanges and incurs charges for each order routed to an away
market, in addition to the fees charged by other exchanges. BOX does
not route broker-dealer proprietary orders, and therefore, does not
assess routing fees on such orders, and has generally been providing
its routing services to Public Customers at a deeply discounted fee.
BOX incurs various costs related to providing routing services. In
order to better recover those related costs and to potentially generate
additional revenue, the Exchange proposes a routing fee to provide this
optional service to Professional accounts.
    The Exchange also notes that although routing is available to BOX
Participants for customer orders, including Professionals, BOX
Participants are not required to use the routing services. Rather, BOX
routing services are completely optional. BOX Participants can manage
their own routing to different options exchanges or can utilize a
myriad of other routing solutions that are available to market
participants. Further, as noted above, the characteristics of
Professional accounts tend to be more similar to broker-dealers than to
non-Professional Public Customers. As such, BOX believes Professionals
are more likely to be able to route their orders to the exchange venues
where they wish to trade. By assessing a fee on Professional accounts
for routing orders, BOX aims to recover its costs in providing this
optional service to its Participants and their Professional customer
accounts. The Exchange believes that providing Public Customers a
preferred rate for routing is consistent with the long history in the
options markets of such customers being given preferred fees.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\13\
because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge
applicable only to a member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further the purposes of the Act.

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-BX-2011-070 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-070. 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 Web site viewing and

printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-070 and should be
submitted on or before November 8, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26855 Filed 10-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 7, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2006-23787

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  VOLGA-DNEPR J.S. CARGO AIRLINE (“Volga-Dnepr”)
  Date Filed:  January 31, 2006

							           as supplemented March 1, 2006

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC § 40109(g) to permit the
applicant to operate one, one-way, all-cargo charter flight, using its
AN-124-100 aircraft, carrying outsized cargo on behalf of Lockheed
Martin Commercial Space Systems (LMCSS), from Moffett Field, California,
to Cape Canaveral, Florida, during the period March 8 through March 11,
2006.  The applicant states that the flight would carry a LMCSS SES
Astra Satellite.  The applicant asserts that LMCSS needs the subject
lift to meet extremely tight schedules associated with maintaining the
assigned launch slot of the satellite; that the cargo is too large for
transportation on U.S.-carrier aircraft; and that surface transportation
is not feasible because of the delicate nature and extremely high value
of the cargo.

Applicant representative:  Glenn P. Wicks,<PHONE_NUMBER>      		   DOT
analyst:  Robert J. Finamore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  Volga-Dnepr served its application on those U.S.
carriers operating large all-cargo aircraft.  Each carrier indicated
that it did not have aircraft available to conduct the proposed
operations and that it had no comment or did not oppose grant of the
requested authority.

Statutory Standards:  Under 49 USC § 40109(g), we may authorize a
foreign air carrier to carry commercial traffic between U.S. points
(i.e., cabotage traffic) under limited circumstances.  Specifically, we
must find that the authority is required in the public interest; that
because of an emergency created by unusual circumstances not arising in
the normal course of business the traffic cannot be accommodated by U.S.
carriers holding certificates under 49 USC § 41102; that all possible
efforts have been made to place the traffic on U.S. carriers; and that
the transportation is necessary to avoid unreasonable hardship to the
traffic involved (an additional required finding, concerning emergency
transportation during labor disputes, was not relevant here).

DISPOSITION

Action: Approved
                                                          Action date:
March 7, 2006

Effective dates of authority granted: March 8, 2006, through March 11,
2006.

Basis for approval:  We are granting Volga-Dnepr’s request to operate
the proposed one-way flight (described above), on behalf of LMCSS.  We
found that its request met all the relevant criteria of 49 USC §
40109(g) for the grant of an exemption of this type, and that the grant
was required in the public interest.  Specifically, we were persuaded
that the need to move the cargo to meet extremely tight schedules
associated with maintaining the assigned launch slot of the satellite;
the fact that the cargo could not be transported by surface because of
its delicate nature and extremely high value; and the unique, outsized
nature of the cargo, constituted an emergency not arising in the normal
course of business.  Moreover, based on the representations of the U.S.
carriers, we concluded that no U.S. carrier had aircraft available that
could be used to conduct the operation at issue here.  We also found
that grant of this authority would prevent unreasonable hardship to
LMCSS.  Finally, we found that the applicant was qualified to perform
its proposed operation.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to our
standard exemption conditions (attached) and to the condition that the
applicant must comply with an FAA-approved flight routing for the
authorized operation.

Action taken by:        				Michael W. Reynolds

Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation

and International Affairs

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                       		       ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

6) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department,
with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S. agencies and
courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80291-80293]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31850]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-7777; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-036-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; B-N Group Ltd. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for B-N
Group Ltd. Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-
2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-
2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, BN2A MK. III-3 BN2A,
BN2B, and BN2A MKIII (all models on TCDS A17EU and A29EU) airplanes
that would supersede AD 2007-06-06. This proposed AD results from
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as cracks in the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure
heads. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 8,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, Commodore House, Mountbatten Business
Centre, Millbrook Road East, Southampton SO15 1HY, United Kingdom;
telephone: +44 20 3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371 4001; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.britten-norman.com/customer-support/. You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
7777; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Johnston, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-7777;
Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-036-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On March 6, 2007, we issued AD 2007-06-06, Amendment 39-14987 (72
FR 12557; March 16, 2007). That AD required actions intended to address
an unsafe condition on B-N Group Ltd. Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-
2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-
27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-
2, BN2A MK. III-3 BN2A, BN2B, and BN2A MKIII (all models on TCDS A17EU
and A29EU) airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country.
    Since we issued AD 2007-06-06, there are reports of premature
failures of the affected part number (P/N) DU130-24 pitot-static
probes.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2015-0199, dated October 7, 2015 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct the above-referenced unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    In 2005, occurrences were reported of finding cracks in the
inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads, Part Number (P/
N) DU130-24.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
incorrect readings on the pressure instrumentation, e.g. altimeters,
vertical speed indicators (rate-of-climb) and airspeed indicators,
possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, B-N Group issued
Service Bulletin (SB) 310 to provide inspection and test
instructions. Consequently, CAA UK issued AD G-2005-0034 (EASA
approval 2005-6447) to require repetitive inspections and leak tests
and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective
action(s).
    Subsequently, B-N Group published SB 310 issue 2, prompting EASA
to issue AD

2006-0143 making reference to SB 310 at issue 2, while the
publication of BNA SB 310 issue 3 prompted EASA AD 2006-0143R1,
introducing BNA modification (mod) NB-M-1728 (new pitot/static
pressure head not affected by the AD requirements) as optional
terminating action for the repetitive inspections and leak tests.
    Since that AD was issued, operators have reported a number of
premature failures of the affected P/N DU130-24 pitot-static probes.
    Prompted by these reports, BNA issued SB 310 issue 4 to reduce
the interval for the inspections and leak tests.
    For the reason described above, this AD retains the requirements
of EASA AD 2006-0143R1, which is superseded, but requires those
actions at reduced intervals.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7777.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    B-N Group Ltd. has issued Britten-Norman Service Bulletin Number SB
310, Issue 4, dated September 25, 2015. The service information
describes procedures for inspections, and if necessary, replacement of
the pitot/static pressure head. 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 of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the MCAI

    The FAA has reviewed the MCAI and related service information and,
in general, agree with their substance. The proposed AD does differ
from the MCAI in that it does not reference BNA Mod NB-M-1728 as an
optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections and leak
tests. The FAA is unable to make these instructions reasonably
available to interested parties so therefore we are unable to include
this in the AD. After issuance of the final AD, the FAA will consider
this modification as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to the
AD provided it is submitted following the instructions in the AD and 14
CFR 39.19.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 93 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $7,905, or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost
of $10,170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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 removing Amendment 39-14987 (72 FR
12557; March 16, 2007) and adding the following new AD:

B-N Group Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2015-7777; Directorate Identifier
2015-CE-036-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 8, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2007-06-06 (72 FR 12557; March 16, 2007).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to B-N Group Ltd. BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3,
BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27,
BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-
2, BN2A MK. III-3 BN2A, BN2B, and BN2A MKIII, BN2A, BN2B, and BN2A
MKIII (all models on TCDS A17EU and A29EU) airplanes, all serial
numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 34: Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by cracks in the inner shell of certain
pitot/static pressure heads. We are issuing this proposed AD to
inspect the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads for
cracks, and replace if necessary.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD:

    (1) For airplanes equipped with pitot/static pressure head part
number (P/N) DU130-24: Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after
the effective date of this AD and repetitively thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, inspect the pitot/static
pressure head for cracks and/or separation and perform a leak test
following the procedures in the action section of Britten-Norman
Service Bulleting SB 310, Issue 4, dated September 25, 2015.
    (2) For airplanes equipped with pitot/static pressure head part
number (P/N) DU130-24: If, during an inspection or test required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD discrepancies are found, before further
flight, replace the pitot/static pressure head with an airworthy
part.
    (3) For airplanes equipped with pitot/static pressure head part
number (P/N) DU130-24: Corrections performed on airplanes as
required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD do not constitute
terminating action for the repetitive actions required in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD.
    (4) For airplanes not equipped with a pitot/static pressure head
P/N DU130-24 on the effective date of this AD: After the effective
date of this AD, do not install a pitot/static pressure head P/N
DU130-24.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Raymond Johnston, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2015-0199, dated October 7, 2015, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7777. For service
information related to this AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft
Limited, Commodore House, Mountbatten Business Centre, Millbrook
Road East, Southampton SO15 1HY, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 20
3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371 4001; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.britten-norman.com/customer-support/. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 11, 2015.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-31850 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22765-22766]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09457]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0126]

Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 4
individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualifications
standard concerning hearing for interstate drivers. The current
regulation prohibits hearing impaired individuals from operating CMVs
in interstate commerce. After notice and opportunity for public
comment, the Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these
drivers to operate property-carrying CMVs will provide a level of
safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety
maintained without the exemptions. The exemptions are valid for a 2-
year period and may be renewed, and the exemptions preempt State laws
and regulations.

DATES: The exemptions are effective April 23, 2015. The exemptions
expire on April 24, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the ground
level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    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.

B. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds ``such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 2-year period. The current provisions of the FMCSRs
concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive
a CMV if that person:

    First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at
not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if
tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average
hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz,
1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the
audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard
(formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.

49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). This standard was adopted in 1970, with a
revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard
while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36
FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
    FMCSA grants 4 individuals an exemption from Sec.  391.41(b)(11)
concerning hearing to enable them to operate property-carrying CMVs in
interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these
exemption applications is based on the current medical literature and
information and the ``Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function
and Commercial Motor Driving Safety'' (the 2008 Evidence Report)
presented to FMCSA on August 26, 2008. The evidence report reached two
conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety:
(1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and
crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2)
evidence from studies of the private driver license holder population
does not support the contention that individuals with hearing
impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the
Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the CDLIS,\1\
for CDL holders, and inspections recorded in MCMIS.\2\ For non-CDL
holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State
licensing agency. Each applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving
history. The Agency believes the drivers covered by the exemptions do
not pose a risk to public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) is an
information system that allows the exchange of commercial driver
licensing information among all the States. CDLIS includes the
databases of 51 licensing jurisdictions and the CDLIS Central Site,
all connected by a telecommunications network.
    \2\ Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) is an
information system that captures data from field offices through
SAFETYNET, CAPRI, and other sources. It is a source for FMCSA
inspection, crash, compliance review, safety audit, and registration
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Comments

    On April 2, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications and requested public comment on 4 individuals. The comment
period ended on May 2, 2014. In response to the notice, FMCSA received
two comments, one from Deb Letney and a late submission received May 5,
from Kristine Thatcher.
    Deb Letney acknowledges that crash data does not support an
increased crash risk for hearing impaired drivers and that Oregon
allows hearing impaired drivers to operate in intrastate commerce.
However, she expresses concerns for ``the driver's ability to recognize
activation of warning devices and to communicate with law enforcement
or emergency workers.'' She recommends granting conditional exemptions
requiring visual warning indicators and alternate forms of
communication.

    Kristine Thatcher questions whether a hearing impaired driver is
``as safe or safer in the operation of a CMV than those who are not
hearing-impaired,'' and expresses concerns about recognizing
``mechanical wear or failure'' such as air leaks, pressure changes,
worn brakes, or a hazard warning such as a horn, that are usually
recognized through sound. She expresses concern for the hearing
impaired driver's inability to communicate in an emergency situation,
``especially if passengers or hazardous materials are involved.''
Kristine Thatcher believes that during a skills test ``an examiner's
ability to safely conduct a road test is compromised'' due to the
distraction of alternate forms of communication. She doesn't believe
that using flash cards during a skills test is appropriate because
instruction ``cannot be condensed to one or two word flash cards'' and
that ``CMV road test standards will be compromised.'' She believes that
restrictions should be imposed to include class B only, no air brakes,
automatic transmission only and no hazardous materials, no double/
triple endorsements and no motor coach with passengers.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency acknowledges these comments and concerns
regarding testing and the public safety risk of a driver unable to
verbally communicate and to hear warning signals or horns. However,
because FMCSA's 2008 Evidence Report and previous research studies have
not shown a higher safety risk for hearing impaired drivers, there is
no basis for restrictions other than the current restriction of no
operation of motorcoach or bus with passengers. Hearing impaired
drivers routinely compensate for their lack of hearing through other
senses. The concerns regarding testing can be overcome by using
alternate forms of communication such as hand gestures, flash cards,
pen/paper, dry erase board or by using electronic devices.

D. Exemptions Granted

    Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications,
FMCSA grants exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to 4 individuals.
Under current FMCSA regulations, the 4 drivers receiving exemptions
from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) would have been considered physically
qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they do not
meet the hearing requirement. FMCSA has determined that the following 4
applicants should be granted an exemption:

Rodney Braden

    Mr. Braden, 48, holds an operator's license in Kentucky.

Arthur Brown

    Mr. Brown, 47, holds an operator's license in Kentucky.

Anthony Castile, III

    Mr. Castile, 45, holds an operator's license in Pennsylvania.

Michael Steggs

    Mr. Steggs, 54, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL)
in Texas.

E. Basis for Exemption

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. With the exemption, applicants can
drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on
whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by
permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as
opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
The driver must comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption.
This includes reporting any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR
390.5 and reporting all citations and convictions for disqualifying
offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391.

Conclusion

    The Agency is granting exemptions from the hearing standard, 49 CFR
391.41(b)(11), to 4 individuals based on an evaluation of each driver's
safety experience. Safety analysis of information relating to these 4
applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions
would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than
the level that would be achieved without the exemption. In accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the
effective date with annual recertification required unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following
occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of
the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of
safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation
of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives
of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    FMCSA exempts the following 4 drivers for a period of 2 years from
the physical qualification standard concerning hearing: Rodney Braden
(KY); Arthur Brown (KY); Anthony Castile, III (PA); and Michael Steggs
(TX).

    Issued on: April 17, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-09457 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P