[Federal Register: October 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 207)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65940-65942]
[DOCID:fr27oc10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30749; Amdt. No. 3396]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective October 27, 2010. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_
federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800

Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2010.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 18 NOV 2010

Platinum, AK, Platinum, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1
St. Paul Island, AK, St. Paul Island, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 36, Amdt 3
St. Paul Island, AK, St. Paul Island, LOC/DME BC RWY 18, Amdt 4
St. Paul Island, AK, St. Paul Island, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2
St. Paul Island, AK, St. Paul Island, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
St. Paul Island, AK, St. Paul Island, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 3
Glendale, AZ, Glendale Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 2
Concord, CA, Buchanan, VOR RWY 19R, Amdt 13
Davis/Woodland/Winters, CA, Yolo County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1
Davis/Woodland/Winters, CA, Yolo County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1
Lodi, CA, Lodi, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Mather, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L, Amdt 1
San Jose, CA, Norman Y. Mineta San Jose Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 30R,
Orig-A
Saipan Island, CQ, Francisco C. Ada/Saipan Island, NDB RWY 7, Amdt 5
Miami, FL, Miami Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 17
Winter Haven, FL, Winter Haven's Gilbert, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 7
Perry, GA, Perry-Houston County, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Orig
Perry, GA, Perry-Houston County, LOC RWY 36, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Perry, GA, Perry-Houston County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Pine Mountain, GA, Harris County, NDB RWY 9, Amdt 9
Pine Mountain, GA, Harris County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Winterset, IA, Winterset Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 2
New Orleans, LA, Lakefront, ILS OR LOC RWY 18R, Amdt 1
New Orleans, LA, Lakefront, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18R, Amdt 2
Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 5L, Amdt 1
Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 5R, Amdt 1
Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23L, Amdt
1
Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23R, Amdt
1
Akron, OH, Akron-Canton Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
6
Bluffton, OH, Bluffton, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-A

Bluffton, OH, Bluffton, VOR RWY 23, Amdt 7A
Baker City, OR, Baker City Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 2
Medford, OR, Rogue Valley Intl-Medford, RNAV (RNP) RWY 32, Orig
Portland, OR, Portland Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10R, ILS RWY 10R (SA CAT
I), ILS RWY 10R (CAT II), ILS RWY 10R (CAT III), Amdt 33A
Hondo, TX, Hondo Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Lancaster, TX, Lancaster Rgnl, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 3
Lancaster, TX, Lancaster Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Victoria, TX, Victoria Rgnl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 12L, Amdt 11
Fillmore, UT, Fillmore Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig
Fillmore, UT, Fillmore Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig
Fillmore, UT, Fillmore Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Price, UT, Carbon County Rgnl/Buck Davis Field, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY
36, Orig-A
Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 21R, Amdt 12
Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3L, Amdt 1
Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1
Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21R, Amdt 1
Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 2
Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, VOR/DME RWY 21R, Amdt 6
Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, VOR/DME RWY 30, Amdt 4
Richland, WA, Richland, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1
Seattle, WA, Boeing Field/King County Intl, ILS RWY 13R, Amdt 30
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 3, ILS RWY 3 (SA CAT I),
ILS RWY 3 (CAT II), ILS RWY 3 (CAT III), Amdt 6
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 3, Amdt 2
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 7, Amdt 2
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21, Amdt 1
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 25, Amdt 3
Spokane, WA, Spokane Intl, VOR RWY 3, Amdt 13

    On September 15, 2010 (75 FR 178) the FAA published an Amendment
in Docket No. 30743, Amdt 3390 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations under section 97.23 and 97.33. The following entries
that were effective November 18, 2010, are changed to effective
December 16, 2010:

Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY
9L, Amdt 21
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY
27R, Amdt 9
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, LOC RWY 9R,
Amdt 5
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, LOC/DME RWY 13,
Amdt 1

[FR Doc. 2010-26949 Filed 10-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42020-42024]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18002]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0398; Amendment No. 33-31]
RIN 2120-AJ62

Airworthiness Standards; Rotor Overspeed Requirements

    AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule will amend the aircraft turbine engine rotor
overspeed type certification standards. This action establishes uniform
rotor overspeed design and test requirements for aircraft engines and
turbochargers certificated by the FAA and the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA). The rule also establishes uniform standards for the
design and testing of engine rotor parts in the United States and in
Europe, eliminating the need to comply with two differing sets of
requirements.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective September 16, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this final rule, contact Tim Mouzakis, Engine and Propeller Directorate
Standards Staff, ANE-111, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Federal
Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this
final rule contact Vincent Bennett, ANE-7, Office of Regional Counsel,
Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(781) 238-7055; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged 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, including minimum safety
standards for aircraft engines. This final rule is within the scope of
that authority because it updates existing regulations for rotor
overspeed for aircraft turbine engines.

Background

    Part 33 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes
airworthiness standards for original and amended type certificates for
aircraft engines. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Certification Specification--Engines (CS-E) prescribes corresponding
airworthiness standards to certify aircraft engines in Europe. While
part 33 and the CS-E are similar, they differ in several respects.
These differences may result in added costs, delays, and time required
for certification. This rule will harmonize applicable U.S. and EASA
standards and clarify existing overspeed requirements for aircraft
turbine engine rotor parts.

Summary of the NPRM

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on April
26, 2010 (75 FR 21523). The proposed changes establish a uniform
certification basis for aircraft turbine engine rotor parts between the
FAA and EASA. The proposal discussed requiring that rotor parts be
designed with a safety margin large enough that the parts have an
overspeed capability that exceeds the engine's certified operating
conditions, including overspeed conditions which can occur in the event
of a failure of another engine component and/or system malfunction. For
failures that may result in an overspeed, the proposal limited rotor
growth to that which would not lead to a hazardous condition as defined
in Sec.  33.75. The comment period for the NPRM closed on July 26,
2010.

Summary of the Final Rule

    There are minor differences between the proposal and this final
rule. Sections 33.27(c) and (g) were changed in response to comments
and our review of the proposal. This rule harmonizes rotor overspeed
requirements found in part 33 with EASA CS-E 840, Rotor Integrity.

Summary of Comments

    The FAA received comments from Rolls-Royce, General Electric
Aviation, Turbomeca, Pratt and Whitney, and General Aviation
Manufacturers Association (GAMA). The commenters

suggested minor improvements in the following areas:
     Differences in the definition of ``extremely remote'' in
Sec.  33.27(c);
     Exclusions of shaft sections from overspeed tests;
     Material properties of test rotors; and
     Validation of analytical tools.

Discussion of the Final Rule

    The final rule requires that rotor parts be designed with a safety
margin large enough that the parts have an overspeed capability
exceeding the engine's certified operating conditions, including
overspeed conditions, which can occur in the event of a failure of
another engine component and/or system malfunction. For failures that
may result in an overspeed, the final rule limits rotor growth to that
which would not lead to a hazardous condition as defined by Sec.
33.75.
    To harmonize FAA and EASA standards, the FAA will:
     Change the current FAA overspeed design margin from 115 to
120 percent of maximum permissible speed for all engine ratings except
one engine inoperative (OEI) ratings of less than 2\1/2\ minutes;
     Change the current FAA overspeed design margin from 100 to
105 percent for operating conditions associated with multiple failures;
     Introduce similar OEI overspeed design requirements;
     Require new similar rotor pass/fail design criteria;
     Require similar overspeed margin requirements;
     Allow the use of validated structural analysis tools to
demonstrate compliance;
     Require that validated structural analysis tools be
calibrated to actual overspeed tests of similar rotors; and
     Allow engine test durations of less than 5 minutes for
failure conditions for which a 5-minute duration is not realistic.
    Like EASA's CS-E, the final rule specifies that rotors may not
burst for overspeed conditions that do not involve component or system
failure. For component or engine failures that result in an overspeed,
the final rule specifies that rotors may not burst and limits the
amount of rotor growth.

Differences in Definition of Probability of Occurrence in Sec.
33.27(c)

    Section 33.27(c) proposed that overspeeds resulting from
combinations of failures must also be considered unless the applicant
can show that the probability of occurrence is not greater than
10-9 per flight. Rolls-Royce, General Electric, Turbomeca,
Pratt and Whitney, and GAMA commented that the proposed criteria in
Sec.  33.27(c) is inconsistent with Sec.  33.75, CS-E 510, and CS-E
840. The commenters also took issue with the FAA's criteria of
probability of occurrence as not greater than 10-9 and FAA's
use of the term ``per flight.'' They suggested that the probability of
occurrence should follow the more flexible criteria of not greater that
``extremely remote,'' which has been defined in the previous
rulemakings as between 10-7 to 10-9. Finally, the
commenters indicated that the term ``per engine flight hour'' should be
substituted for ``per flight'' to be consistent with Sec.  33.75 and
CS-E 840.
    We agree with the revised criteria proposed by the commenters. The
final rule will reflect that overspeeds resulting from combinations of
failures must also be considered, unless the applicant can show that
the probability of occurrence is not greater than extremely remote
(probability range of 10-7 to 10-9 per engine
flight hour).

Exclusion of Shaft Sections From Overspeed Tests

    Proposed Sec.  33.27(f) allows exclusion of certain shaft sections,
but not the whole shaft system, from the requirement when determining
the terminal rotor speed due to shaft failure. Rolls-Royce commented
that Sec.  33.27(c) allows exclusion on a probability basis only of
overspeeds ``resulting from combinations of failures,'' whereas CS-E
840(c) allows the probability exclusion for any cause if ``it can be
shown to be Extremely Remote under the provisions of CS-E 850.''
    Rolls-Royce requested that the lead sentence of Sec.  33.27(c) be
changed to, ``The highest overspeed which will result from a complete
loss of load on a turbine rotor, unless it can be shown to be Extremely
Remote or except as provided by paragraph (f) of this section.* * *''.
The change proposed by Rolls-Royce would allow exclusion of the whole
shaft system from consideration of failure, which is not the intent of
the rule. Our changes to overspeed requirements due to shaft failures
are consistent with those in CS-E-840 and CS-E-850(b). We did not
change the rule due to this comment.

Material Properties of Test Rotors

    Section 33.27(a)(1) proposed that test rotors used to demonstrate
compliance with this section that do not have the most adverse
combination of material properties and dimensional tolerances must be
tested at conditions which have been adjusted to ensure the minimum
specification rotor possesses the required overspeed capability.
    Rolls-Royce claimed that determining the precise ``most adverse
combination'' is not practical. Rolls-Royce noted that Advisory
Circular (AC) 33.27-1, paragraph 7.g indicates that the applicant
should consider ``the most adverse combination of dimensional
tolerances and material properties,'' which allows the use of
engineering judgment and best practices in lieu of an exhaustive
assessment of all possible combinations and permutations. As a result,
Rolls-Royce requested that the phrase ``that do not have the most
adverse combination of material properties and dimensional tolerances''
be omitted from Sec.  33.27(a)(1).
    We disagree. We find that our proposed wording of Sec.  33.27(a)(1)
is consistent with EASA's regulation CS-E 840(a) and that the suggested
change would not meet the intent of the proposed paragraph. Our intent
in Sec.  33.27(a)(1) is to ensure that the minimum specifications rotor
is capable of meeting the test requirements of the proposed rule.
Industry has been complying with this requirement, as stated in EASA
regulations, for several years. The change proposed by Rolls-Royce
would, therefore, diverge from EASA's rule and could increase cost to
manufacturers. We did not change the final rule due to this comment.

Validation of Analytical Tools

    We proposed in Sec.  33.27(g) that if analysis is used to meet the
overspeed requirements, then the analytical tool must be calibrated to
prior overspeed test results of a similar rotor. The tool must be
calibrated for the same material, rotor geometry, stress level, and
temperature range as the rotor being certified. Calibration includes
the ability to accurately predict rotor dimensional growth and burst
speed. The predictions must also show that the rotor being certified
does not have lower burst and growth margins than rotors used to
calibrate the tool.
    Rolls-Royce commented that the requirements for validation of
analytical tools eligible for use in showing compliance in lieu of
testing are overly restrictive. Rolls-Royce said the language of Sec.
33.27(g) appears to invalidate any potential for the applicant to
propose analysis methods to the Administrator for acceptance per AC
33.27-1, paragraphs 7.b and 7.c. Rolls-Royce noted that it seems
unlikely that an applicant will have a tool calibrated for the same
conditions and the same rotor as that being certified; such a
certification appears redundant. Rolls-Royce requested that Sec.
33.27(g) be

modified to read: ``If analysis is used to meet the overspeed
requirements, then the analytical tool must be calibrated to prior
overspeed test results of a similar rotor.''
    We agree that the language of proposed 33.27(g) appears overly
restrictive. We changed the language to read the analytical tool must
be ``validated'' instead of ``calibrated'' for each material. The
analytical model must be validated using rotors which ``surround'' the
rotor being certified in terms of ``shape, stresses and temperature.''
The final rule now reads: ``If analysis is used to meet the overspeed
requirements, then the analytical tool must be validated to prior
overspeed test results of a similar rotor. The tool must be validated
for each material. The rotor being certified must not exceed the
boundaries of the rotors being used to validate the analytical tool in
terms of geometric shape, operating stress, and temperature.'' This
changed wording is also consistent with EASA advisory material AMC E
840.

Definition of Terms Used in the Final Rule

    The following definitions of terms used in the final rule are
provided for clarity:
    Maximum permissible rotor speed. The maximum approved rotor speed,
including transients, for the maximum approved rating, including One-
Engine-Inoperative (OEI) ratings.
    Overspeed Capability. The r.p.m. (revolutions per minute) at which
the part fails or bursts.
    Rotor Growth. The total increase in a rotor part's radial
dimensions caused by an overspeed condition. Total growth includes both
the recoverable (elastic) and the permanent (plastic) change in rotor
dimensions.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined there is
no new requirement for information collection associated with this
final rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices, to the maximum extent practicable. We determined
that no ICAO Standards or Recommended Practices corresponding to these
proposed regulations exist.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order
13563 direct that each Federal agency propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended
regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact
of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for
inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
contains the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above.

Total Estimated Benefits and Costs of This Proposed Rule

    Presently, turbine aircraft engine manufacturers must satisfy both
FAA part 33 and EASA CS-E regulations to certify their products in the
United States and Europe. Certification to one standard will improve
certification efficiency by eliminating duplicate testing and
documentation. We have not attempted to quantify the cost savings that
may accrue due to this improved certification efficiency beyond noting
that these are expected to be minor. We have drawn that conclusion
based on the consensus among potentially affected aircraft engine
manufacturers.
    Industry must currently certificate to the two standards that are
substantively similar, but have a few slightly different testing and
documentation procedures and requirements. The rule harmonizes these
procedures and requirements to the higher standard and, thereby, may
increase safety. In addition, by reducing the amount of duplicative
testing that would need to be either witnessed or analyzed by the FAA,
the FAA is better able to prioritize its resources to other, more
safety critical areas. Consequently, we determined that unquantifiable
future minimal benefits from the rule may also accrue. We disagreed
with a comment determining the precise ``most adverse combination'' of
material properties and dimensional tolerances to establish the
required overspeed capability. However, as noted in our response, the
commenter's suggestion would result in a rule that is not consistent
with the EASA regulations and the suggestion might increase costs to
manufacturers. As a result, the FAA concludes that the combination of
cost savings and potential increased safety benefits will make this
rule cost beneficial. Further, we therefore determined that this rule
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If

the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    The net effect of this rule is to provide regulatory cost relief.
Further, all but one U.S. aircraft turbine engine manufacturer exceeds
the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria for aircraft
engine manufacturers of 1,500 employees. U.S. transport category
aircraft engine manufacturers include: General Electric (GE); CFM
International (a joint company of GE and Snecma); Pratt & Whitney
(P&W); Honeywell; Rolls-Royce Corporation (formerly Allison Engines);
International Aero Engines (a privately-held consortium that includes
P&W, Rolls-Royce, Japanese Aero Engines Corporation, and MTU Aero
Engines); and Williams International. Williams International is the
only one of these manufacturers that is categorized as a U.S. small
business by the SBA criteria. As this final rule reduces costs and
there is only one small entity manufacturing part 33 aircraft engines,
therefore, as FAA Administrator, I certify this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. We assessed the
potential effect of this rule and determined that it uses European
standards as the basis for regulation, and thus is consistent with the
Trade Assessments Act.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $140.8 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate, therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and therefore does not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E defines FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. We determined
this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion
identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d, and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under the executive order and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the notice, amendment, or docket number of this
rulemaking.
    Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a
question regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA
official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more
about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

0
1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  33.27 to read as follows:

Sec.  33.27  Turbine, compressor, fan, and turbosupercharger rotor
overspeed.

    (a) For each fan, compressor, turbine, and turbosupercharger rotor,
the

applicant must establish by test, analysis, or a combination of both,
that each rotor will not burst when operated in the engine for 5
minutes at whichever of the conditions defined in paragraph (b) of this
section is the most critical with respect to the integrity of such a
rotor.
    (1) Test rotors used to demonstrate compliance with this section
that do not have the most adverse combination of material properties
and dimensional tolerances must be tested at conditions which have been
adjusted to ensure the minimum specification rotor possesses the
required overspeed capability. This can be accomplished by increasing
test speed, temperature, and/or loads.
    (2) When an engine test is being used to demonstrate compliance
with the overspeed conditions listed in paragraph (b)(3) or (b)(4) of
this section and the failure of a component or system is sudden and
transient, it may not be possible to operate the engine for 5 minutes
after the failure. Under these circumstances, the actual overspeed
duration is acceptable if the required maximum overspeed is achieved.
    (b) When determining the maximum overspeed condition applicable to
each rotor in order to comply with paragraphs (a) and (c) of this
section, the applicant must evaluate the following rotor speeds taking
into consideration the part's operating temperatures and temperature
gradients throughout the engine's operating envelope:
    (1) 120 percent of the maximum permissible rotor speed associated
with any of the engine ratings except one-engine-inoperative (OEI)
ratings of less than 2\1/2\ minutes.
    (2) 115 percent of the maximum permissible rotor speed associated
with any OEI ratings of less than 2\1/2\ minutes.
    (3) 105 percent of the highest rotor speed that would result from
either:
    (i) The failure of the component or system which, in a
representative installation of the engine, is the most critical with
respect to overspeed when operating at any rating condition except OEI
ratings of less than 2\1/2\ minutes, or
    (ii) The failure of any component or system in a representative
installation of the engine, in combination with any other failure of a
component or system that would not normally be detected during a
routine pre-flight check or during normal flight operation, that is the
most critical with respect to overspeed, except as provided by
paragraph (c) of this section, when operating at any rating condition
except OEI ratings of less than 2\1/2\ minutes.
    (4) 100 percent of the highest rotor speed that would result from
the failure of the component or system which, in a representative
installation of the engine, is the most critical with respect to
overspeed when operating at any OEI rating of less than 2\1/2\ minutes.
    (c) The highest overspeed that results from a complete loss of load
on a turbine rotor, except as provided by paragraph (f) of this
section, must be included in the overspeed conditions considered by
paragraphs (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(ii), and (b)(4) of this section,
regardless of whether that overspeed results from a failure within the
engine or external to the engine. The overspeed resulting from any
other single failure must be considered when selecting the most
limiting overspeed conditions applicable to each rotor. Overspeeds
resulting from combinations of failures must also be considered unless
the applicant can show that the probability of occurrence is not
greater than extremely remote (probability range of 10-7 to
10-9 per engine flight hour).
    (d) In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that each fan,
compressor, turbine, and turbosupercharger rotor complies with
paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section for the maximum overspeed
achieved when subjected to the conditions specified in paragraphs
(b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section. The applicant must use the approach
in paragraph (a) of this section which specifies the required test
conditions.
    (1) Rotor Growth must not cause the engine to:
    (i) Catch fire,
    (ii) Release high-energy debris through the engine casing or result
in a hazardous failure of the engine casing,
    (iii) Generate loads greater than those ultimate loads specified in
Sec.  33.23(a), or
    (iv) Lose the capability of being shut down.
    (2) Following an overspeed event and after continued operation, the
rotor may not exhibit conditions such as cracking or distortion which
preclude continued safe operation.
    (e) The design and functioning of engine control systems,
instruments, and other methods not covered under Sec.  33.28 must
ensure that the engine operating limitations that affect turbine,
compressor, fan, and turbosupercharger rotor structural integrity will
not be exceeded in service.
    (f) Failure of a shaft section may be excluded from consideration
in determining the highest overspeed that would result from a complete
loss of load on a turbine rotor if the applicant:
    (1) Identifies the shaft as an engine life-limited-part and
complies with Sec.  33.70.
    (2) Uses material and design features that are well understood and
that can be analyzed by well-established and validated stress analysis
techniques.
    (3) Determines, based on an assessment of the environment
surrounding the shaft section, that environmental influences are
unlikely to cause a shaft failure. This assessment must include
complexity of design, corrosion, wear, vibration, fire, contact with
adjacent components or structure, overheating, and secondary effects
from other failures or combination of failures.
    (4) Identifies and declares, in accordance with Sec.  33.5, any
assumptions regarding the engine installation in making the assessment
described above in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
    (5) Assesses, and considers as appropriate, experience with shaft
sections of similar design.
    (6) Does not exclude the entire shaft.
    (g) If analysis is used to meet the overspeed requirements, then
the analytical tool must be validated to prior overspeed test results
of a similar rotor. The tool must be validated for each material. The
rotor being certified must not exceed the boundaries of the rotors
being used to validate the analytical tool in terms of geometric shape,
operating stress, and temperature. Validation includes the ability to
accurately predict rotor dimensional growth and the burst speed. The
predictions must also show that the rotor being certified does not have
lower burst and growth margins than rotors used to validate the tool.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 30, 2011.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-18002 Filed 7-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 25328]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10836]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR11-84-002]

DCP Guadalupe Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on April 27, 2011, DCP Guadalupe Pipeline, LLC
(Guadalupe) filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions for
Transportation Services (SOC) to comply with an April 26, 2011,
unpublished Director letter order, as more fully described in the
filing.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 9, 2011.

    Dated: April 28, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10836 Filed 5-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 20)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4996-5002]
[DOCID:fr01fe10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 390

[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0127]
RIN 2126-AA98

Safety Requirements for Operators of Small Passenger-Carrying
Commercial Motor Vehicles Used in Interstate Commerce

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA amends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to require that motor carriers operating commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs), designed or used to transport between 9 and 15
passengers (including the driver), in interstate commerce for direct
compensation comply with the safety regulations regardless of the
distance traveled. Specifically, this rule makes certain FMCSRs
applicable to the operation of such vehicles when they are operated
within a 75 air-mile radius (86.3 statute miles or 138.9 kilometers)
from the driver's normal work-reporting location. Motor carriers,
drivers, and the vehicles operated by them will be subject to the same
safety requirements imposed upon such vehicles when they are operated
beyond a 75-air-mile radius. This action is required by the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

DATES: Effective: This rule is effective May 3, 2010. Compliance: Motor
carriers must be in compliance with this rule no later than June 1,
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Loretta Bitner, Chief, Commercial
Passenger Carrier Safety Division, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents
including those referenced in this document go to http://
www.regulations.gov at any time or visit the U.S. Department of
Transportation Dockets located on the ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    Section 4136 of SAFETEA-LU [Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1745,
August 10, 2005] (set out as a note to 49 U.S.C. 31136) states that
``[t]he Federal motor carrier safety regulations that apply to
interstate operations of commercial motor vehicles designed to
transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver) shall
apply to all interstate operations of such carriers regardless of the
distance traveled.''
    The FMCSA notes that the legislative history of this provision of
SAFETEA-LU is sparse and, in some respects, inconsistent with the
mandate of section 4136. The Senate bill (S. 1567, 109th Cong. 1st
Sess. (July 29, 2005)) that contained the provisions relating to motor
carrier safety that became part of SAFETEA-LU included the following
provisions, in section 106(2): ``The Secretary of Transportation shall
* * * ensure that Federal motor carrier safety regulations that apply
to interstate operations of commercial motor vehicles designed to
transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver) apply to
all interstate operations of such carries [sic] regardless of the
distance traveled.''
    The committee report accompanying this bill said that this
provision ``would ensure that the Secretary enforces Federal motor
carrier safety regulations that apply to interstate CMVs designed to
transport between 9 and 15 passengers, regardless of the distance
traveled.'' Sen. Report No. 109-120 (109th Cong. 1st Sess., July 29,
2005), at 20.
    In the House of Representatives, similar language was found in
section 4130 of an early version H.R. 3 (109th Cong, 1st Sess., 2005),
which stated ``[t]he Federal motor carrier safety regulations (other
than regulations relating to commercial drivers license and drug and
alcohol testing requirements) shall apply to all interstate operations
of commercial motor vehicles used to transport between 9 and 15
passengers (including the driver), regardless of the distance
traveled.'' House Report 109-12 (109th Cong., 1st Sess., March 7,
2005), at 306.
    The House committee report described the purpose of this provision
as follows:

     ``This section directs the Secretary to extend the
Federal motor carrier safety regulations found in 49 Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 387, 390 through 399 to all operations of
commercial motor vehicles designed to transport between nine and

fifteen passengers (including the driver), regardless of their
operational distance. This section amends the final rule issued by
DOT on August 12, 2003.
     The Committee intends the Secretary to address this
situation through the rulemaking process. As part of the rulemaking,
the Secretary shall amend the final rule addressing commercial motor
vehicles transporting nine to fifteen passengers to specifically
exclude vanpool operations as defined by section 132(f) of the
Internal Revenue Code. The rulemaking also exempts stretch sedan
limousines that are designed to seat nine to fifteen passengers. The
rulemaking does not exempt SUV stretch limousines, or super stretch
sedan limousines that are designed to seat sixteen or more
passengers (including the driver).''

House Report 109-12, at 441.
    The House and Senate conferees included in section 4136 of SAFETEA-
LU (as quoted above) a provision very similar to both the Senate and
House bills. But it reconciled the obviously different underlying
intentions of the two bodies with the following: ``The conference
adopts the identical House and Senate language applying the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to interstate van operations. Further,
the conference agrees to exempt vanpool operations.''
    House Conference Report No. 109-203 (109th Cong., 1st Sess., 2005)
at 1003. It appears from this history that the central, albeit narrow,
purpose of the statutory language ultimately adopted (which varied
little from the similar House and Senate proposals) was to apply,
regardless of the distance traveled, all FMCSRs applicable to
operations of vehicles designed to transport between 9 and 15
passengers (including the driver). Other than the change relating to
the distance traveled, other criteria determining the applicability of
the FMCSRs to such vehicles are unaffected by section 4136. The effect
of this central purpose on FMCSA's current regulations, and the changes
necessary to put it into effect, are discussed in more detail below.
    However, it also appears the House committee's desire to exempt
``vanpool operations as defined in section 132(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code'' and ``stretch sedan limousines'' from the rule required
by section 4136 was not accepted by the conference between the two
chambers, and was not included in the final statutory language.\1\
Moreover, it is not clear if the reference in the Conference Report to
``vanpool operations'' was intended to refer to the same type of
operations described in the House report, and again the statutory
language of section 4136 does not include any exception or exemption
for ``vanpool operations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ It is also not clear that the statutory language that passed
the House, which says nothing about any exceptions or exemptions,
would have been sufficient to require the implementation of the two
desired exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that the Agency, like the courts, does not
have the authority to implement any of the exemptions contemplated by
the Conference Report or other legislative history. ``[I]n the absence
of a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, the
language of the statute itself must ordinarily be regarded as
conclusive. * * * Unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise,
[w]hen we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is
complete.'' Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm., 481 U.S.
454, 461 (1984) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In this
case, the unambiguous language of section 4136 is conclusive, and there
is no evidence of exceptional circumstances that would support a
different view as to the reach of the statute.

Background

    On August 12, 2003 (68 FR 47860), FMCSA published a final rule
making the FMCSRs applicable to all motor carriers operating CMVs
designed or used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including
the driver) in interstate commerce for direct compensation when the
vehicle is operated beyond a 75 air-mile radius (86.3 statute miles or
138.9 kilometers) from the driver's normal work-reporting location.
These requirements were based on the Agency's: (1) understanding of the
requirements of section 212 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act
of 1999 [Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1764, December 9, 1999]; (2)
analysis of comments submitted in response to previous rulemaking
actions concerning the passenger vehicle component of the CMV
definition at 49 U.S.C. 31132(1). (See section 4008(a)(2) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [Pub. L. 105-178, 112
Stat. 107, June 9, 1998]); and (3) analysis of crash data concerning
large vans. The Agency indicated that it believed this approach would
be more effective than other alternatives for responding to
congressional and public safety concerns about what is commonly
referred to as long-haul van operations for direct compensation
throughout the United States, including for-hire vans operated by
foreign-based motor carriers into and out of the United States for
direct compensation. The 2003 final rule recounted and reviewed the
several legislative changes and regulatory actions that preceded that
final rule.
    All of the requirements adopted in that final rule applicable to
the operations of these smaller passenger-carrying vehicles for direct
compensation beyond a 75-air-mile radius are now made applicable by
this final rule, regardless of the distance traveled. This final rule
does not make any other changes in the applicability of the FMCSRs to
small-passenger-carrying vehicles. This means, for example, that
operators of such vehicles for indirect compensation are not subject to
the safety-related operational regulations in 49 CFR parts 390-399, and
are only subject to the provisions specifically included in amended 49
CFR 390.3(f)(6).
    Similarly, this final rule would not apply to commuter vanpools
which FMCSA has previously indicated it did not believe Congress
intended for the Agency to regulate. Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations; Definition of Commercial Motor Vehicle, 64 FR 48510, 48514
(Sept. 3, 1999) (IFR). The Agency stated in that IFR that the use of
the phrase ``for compensation'' in the definition of ``commercial motor
vehicle'' in 49 U.S.C. 31132(1)(B) meant that Congress intended for
regulation to ``be limited to vans operated in the furtherance of a
commercial enterprise, which is generally not the case for commuter
vanpools * * * [T]he agency does not intend to regulate commuter
vanpools that are not operated in the furtherance of a commercial
enterprise.'' During its subsequent consideration of regulations for
small passenger-carrying vehicles, the Agency did not indicate any
change in this view of the scope of its regulatory authority. Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; Definition of Commercial Motor
Vehicle (CMV); Requirements for Operators of Small Passenger-Carrying
CMVs, 66 FR 2756, 2761, 2763 (Jan. 11, 2001) (final rule); Safety
Requirements for Operators of Small Passenger-Carrying Vehicles Used in
Interstate Commerce, 66 FR 2767, 2769 (Jan. 11, 2001) (notice of
proposed rulemaking); and 68 FR 47860 (Aug. 12, 2003) (final rule).
Therefore, the FMCSRs were and are still not applicable to ``commuter
vanpools,'' and enactment of section 4136 of SAFETEA-LU did not change
this regulatory status.
    On the other hand, the statute does have the effect of now applying
all of the operational FMCSRs to vanpools operated in furtherance of a
commercial enterprise within the 75 air-mile limit adopted in 2003.
Such operations would have been excluded from the application of the
FMCSRs only because of the distance traveled, and section 4136 has set
aside that limitation.

    Finally, FMCSA also must point out that, as explained in the 1999
interim final rule, the operation of a van by an individual who
receives money from other participants in the vanpool is not considered
to be an operation in furtherance of a commercial enterprise. The
Agency ``does not believe that this type of arrangement should be
considered `for compensation' and does not intend to regulate such
operations.'' 64 FR 48514.
    In summary, certain types of vanpool operations currently are not
subject to the FMCSRs for reasons other than the distance traveled.
Notwithstanding the absence of explicit statutory language in section
4136 concerning the apparent intention of the conference committee to
exempt ``vanpool operations,'' FMCSA believes that many types of
vanpool operations have not been subject to the FMCSRs, and that the
operative language of section 4136 does not change that situation.

Effect of the Final Rule

    The FMCSA amends the FMCSRs to require that motor carriers
operating CMVs designed or used to transport between 9 and 15
passengers (including the driver) in interstate commerce for direct
compensation comply with the regulations contained in 49 CFR parts 390,
391, 392, 393, 395 and 396, regardless of the distance traveled.
    These motor carriers must comply with the general requirements
under part 390, including but not limited to vehicle marking
requirements. Motor carriers must ensure that every self-propelled CMV
they operate is marked as specified in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d)
under 49 CFR 390.21, including among other things, the requirement to
mark the vehicle with the USDOT Number and the legal name or a single
trade name of the motor carrier operating the vehicle. The final rule
eliminates the exception under Sec.  390.3(f)(6)(ii) which permitted
small passenger-carrying vehicles operated within a 75 air-mile radius
of the normal work reporting location to be marked only with the USDOT
Number and to exclude the legal or trade name.
    These motor carriers are required to ensure that each of their
drivers meets all of the minimum qualifications for interstate CMV
drivers prescribed in part 391, including physical qualifications and
maintaining records to document compliance.
    The rules in part 392 regarding driving of CMVs also are
applicable. Part 392 requirements include general prohibitions against
the use of alcohol, drugs and other substances while operating a CMV or
operating a CMV while ill or fatigued. The motor carrier must ensure
that its drivers comply with rules governing operation of CMVs at
railroad grade crossings, practices to ensure a CMV is safely stopped,
fueling precautions, and other general prohibited practices such as
transporting unauthorized persons, towing or pushing loaded buses.
    Motor carriers must meet all applicable requirements in part 393
concerning parts and accessories necessary for safe operation of a CMV.
Applicable requirements include, among other things, lamps, reflective
devices, and electrical wiring; brakes; glazing and window
construction; fuel systems; and emergency equipment.
    Under part 395, motor carriers must ensure that their drivers
comply with the applicable hours-of-service requirements for motor
carriers of passengers. Most, if not all, operators of small-passenger
carrying vehicles within the 75 air-mile limit and their drivers will
be covered by the short-haul operations provisions of 49 CFR Sec.
395.1(e)(1). If the driver operates within a 100 air-mile radius of the
normal work-reporting location and the driver returns to that location
and is released from work within 12 consecutive hours after starting
work, then the driver must not drive more than 10 hours after 8 hours
off duty and must have at least 8 consecutive hours off duty separating
each 12 hours on duty. Drivers covered by these short-haul provisions
are not required to maintain a record-of-duty status (log book).
However, the employer must maintain for 6 months records of each
driver's time of both reporting for and being released from duty, and
the number of hours on duty each day.
    In accordance with 49 CFR 395.5, any drivers who operate beyond a
100 air-mile radius from the normal work-reporting location must not
drive more than 10 hours after 8 consecutive hours off duty or operate
CMVs after being on duty more than 15 hours, following 8 consecutive
hours off duty. Furthermore, drivers must not drive after being on duty
60 hours in any 7 consecutive days if the motor carrier does not
operate CMVs every day of the week (60-hour rule), or after being on
duty 70 hours in any eight consecutive days if the motor carrier
operates CMVs every day of the week (70-hour rule). In addition, 49 CFR
395.8 requires these drivers to document the number of hours on duty
and the number of hours driving and record his/her duty status.
    Although these hours-of-service requirements will now be applicable
to operators within the 75 air-mile limit, FMCSA does not believe that
they will impose any additional cost burdens, for purposes of assessing
either the costs of this final rule or the burden of information
collection. These operators are most likely not currently allowing
drivers to drive more than 10 hours or to be on duty more than 12 or 15
hours. The information collection requirements are usually and
customarily met by maintenance of payroll records by the operators in
the ordinary course of business for drivers covered by the short-haul
operations provisions.
    In addition to the requirements described in the preceding
paragraphs, each motor carrier is required under part 396 to have a
systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance program for the CMVs it
operates, and to ensure that vehicles are in safe and proper operating
condition at all times. They are also required to maintain records to
document compliance with these rules. Motor carriers are required to
ensure that each vehicle is inspected at least once every 12 months by
a qualified inspector/mechanic and that any motor carrier employee who
is responsible for the adequacy of any brake-related inspection,
repair, or maintenance work meets certain minimum qualifications. They
must also maintain records to document compliance with these rules.
    The FMCSA is not making the commercial driver's license and
controlled substances and alcohol testing requirements applicable to
operators of small passenger-carrying CMVs, because section 4136 does
not change the existing non-application of those requirements that
results from the statutory definition of CMV in 49 U.S.C. 31301(4) used
for those programs. Consequently, the passenger-carrying threshold for
CDL and controlled substances and alcohol testing requirements remains
at 16 passengers (including the driver).

New Entrant Program

    The 2003 final rule required all motor carriers that operate CMVs
designed or used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers for direct
compensation to complete a motor carrier identification report (Form
MCS-150), and to obtain a USDOT Number. This included carriers
operating within the 75 air-mile exclusion. 49 CFR 390.3(f)(6). All
such carriers that have fulfilled the requirements of the 2003 final
rule would already be included in FMCSA's census of motor carriers and
would have been considered new entrants and subject to a limited new
entrant review to ensure their compliance with the very limited
requirements of the rule (i.e., maintaining an accident register and
marking of their CMVs).

    Any carriers that have already registered will be subject to safety
requirements such as driver qualifications and hours of service and be
required to have appropriate safety management controls in place to
ensure compliance with the FMCSRs. However, any carriers not previously
registered will be considered new entrant motor carriers. Those
carriers will be covered by the revised New Entrant Safety Assurance
Process recently adopted by the Agency. 73 FR 76472 (Dec. 16, 2008).

Applicability of Safety Fitness Procedures to Operators of Small
Passenger-Carrying CMVs

    Part 385 of the FMCSRs establishes procedures to determine the
safety fitness of motor carriers, to assign safety ratings, to take
remedial action when required, and to prohibit motor carriers receiving
a safety rating of ``Unsatisfactory'' from operating a CMV. As a result
of this final rule, motor carriers operating small passenger-carrying
CMVs within a 75 air-mile radius of the driver's normal work-reporting
location are now covered by the same safety fitness procedures and
standards used to evaluate other interstate motor carriers. This means
that motor carriers affected by this rulemaking are subject to
compliance reviews and will receive safety ratings. Those that receive
an ``Unsatisfactory'' safety rating will be prohibited from operating
CMVs to transport passengers in interstate commerce. In addition, these
motor carriers will be ineligible to contract or subcontract with any
Federal agency for transportation of passengers in interstate commerce.

Implementation Schedule

    The FMCSA is requiring that subject motor carriers comply with the
safety requirements 30 days after the effective date of the final rule.
This means that motor carriers have approximately 120 days after the
date of publication of this rule to comply with the safety regulations.
The Agency believes this is sufficient time for the motor carriers that
will be affected to establish and implement safety management controls
to achieve compliance with the FMCSRs.

Estimated Costs and Benefits of Imposing Safety-Related Requirements

    The FMCSA has attempted to evaluate the potential costs of the
final rule. The Agency has considered currently available data
concerning the number of affected motor carriers, CMVs, and drivers.
    The FMCSA estimates that approximately 12,200 motor carriers
currently have active authority to operate 9- to 15-passenger vehicles
for direct compensation. These 12,200 motor carriers operate
approximately 43,200 small passenger vehicles and employ roughly 57,900
drivers, all of which could potentially be affected by this rule. The
cost to complete medical examinations and certifications for drivers,
create and maintain driver qualification files, and inspect, repair and
maintain affected vehicles is estimated at $29 million for the first
year and $22 million for each additional year the rule is in effect. A
regulatory evaluation has been prepared and is available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
    The FMCSA estimates there are 558 fatal crashes each year involving
large vans with between 9 and 15 passengers aboard at the time of the
crash (at a cost of $6.315 million per crash). The Agency estimates
there are 2,234 injury crashes each year involving 9- to 15-passenger
vehicles (at a cost of $0.336 million per crash). Therefore, the annual
reduction in crashes necessary for the benefits of the proposal to
outweigh the costs is only two-thirds of one percent (0.67%) of all
such crashes for the first year and one-half of one percent (0.51%) for
each additional year thereafter. The Agency believes the increased
focus on passenger carrier operations brought about by this rulemaking
will help to accomplish an improvement in safety.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an
Agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it
finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.
    In this case, notice and comment are unnecessary. The final rule
amends FMCSA's regulations to make them consistent with section 4136 of
SAFETEA-LU, a provision which makes the FMCSRs applicable to the
operation of 9- to 15-passenger vehicles when such vehicles are
operated for direct compensation, in interstate commerce, regardless of
the distance traveled.
    Because the statutory language does not provide FMCSA any
discretion in adopting the necessary changes to its regulations, FMCSA
finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) that prior notice and comment on
this final rule is unnecessary.

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

    The FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking action is a not a
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 and is not significant within the meaning of Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures because there has not
been substantial public interest concerning the extension of the
applicability of the FMCSRs to a larger population of for-hire motor
carriers of passengers.
    This final rule requires that for hire operators of vehicles
designed or used to carry between 9 and 15 passengers (including the
driver) in interstate commerce comply with applicable provisions of 49
CFR parts 325 and 350-399 when the commercial vehicle is operated
within a 75 air-mile radius (86.3 statute miles or 138.9 kilometers)
from the driver's normal work-reporting location. These regulations
include, but are not limited to, 49 CFR part 391, Qualifications of
drivers; 49 CFR part 392, Driving of commercial motor vehicles; 49 CFR
part 393, Parts and accessories necessary for safe operation; 49 CFR
part 395, Hours of service of drivers; and 49 CFR part 396, Inspection,
repair, and maintenance.
    Executive Order 12866 requires that regulatory agencies assess both
the costs and benefits of intended regulations and proposed regulations
on the basis that the benefits justify the costs. Based upon the
information above, the agency anticipates that the economic impact
associated with this rulemaking action will be $29 million for the
first year, and $22 million for each subsequent year. The benefits of
reducing fatal and injury crashes by 0.51% annually (0.67% in the first
year) would outweigh the estimated costs of the rule.
    For purposes of Executive Order 12866, this rulemaking does not
impose an economic burden greater than $100 million on these motor
carriers. Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not necessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), FMCSA has considered the effects of this regulatory action on
small entities and determined that this final rule would not affect a
substantial number of small entities, but would have a significant
impact on those affected.
    The FMCSA is requiring that all motor carriers operating CMVs
designed or used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers in interstate
commerce be

made subject to the safety-related operational FMCSRs when they are
directly compensated for such services. This includes carriers
operating such vehicles within a 75 air-mile radius (86.3 statute miles
or 138.9 kilometers) from the driver's normal work-reporting location.
These motor carriers would be required to comply with 49 CFR parts 390,
391, 392, 393, 395, and 396.
    If most or all of these businesses are classified as small
businesses by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the rule could
potentially affect up to approximately 12,200 small entities. However,
some of these small entities may be foreign-based motor carriers that
the agency is not required to include in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
analysis. To avoid underestimating the potential impact on small
entities, FMCSA is using an estimate of 12,200.
    As indicated earlier, FMCSA estimates that the sum of all estimated
costs of requiring operators of small passenger-carrying CMVs to comply
with 49 CFR parts 391, 393, and 396 is approximately $29 million for
the first year and $22 million per year thereafter. If the costs of the
rulemaking are distributed evenly among these 12,200 motor carriers,
the costs per carrier would be approximately $2,400 for the first year
the requirements are in effect, and about $1,800 per year thereafter. A
summary of the estimated costs per motor carrier is presented below.

      Summary of Costs per Motor Carrier To Comply With the FMCSRs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Cost of                   First year         Each year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Exam and Certification......            $1,556            $1,019
Create Driver Qualification Files...                62                40
Inspection, Repair, Maintenance                    751               751
 Process............................
                                     -----------------------------------
    Grand Total Cost................             2,369             1,810
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FMCSA has reviewed data from the SBA to determine the typical
revenues for a motor carrier in the intercity and rural bus
transportation segment of the industry. This category description
appeared to be similar to the types of motor carrier operations that
would be covered by this rulemaking. The SBA's 1997 tables on
``Employer Firms, Employment and Estimated Receipts by Employment Size
of Firm'' separated the firms into three groups: Those with less than
20 employees, those with less than 500 employees, and those with 500 or
more employees.
    The FMCSA focused on the group with less than 20 employees to be
consistent with the Agency's estimate of the number of drivers employed
by each of the 12,200 motor carriers likely to be affected by this
rule. The SBA data indicated there are 145 firms in this category with
combined revenues of $41,793,000. For the purpose of this analysis, the
revenues for the businesses in this group were divided by the number of
firms resulting in an estimate of $288,227 in revenues per year for
each carrier [($41,793,000/145 firms)].
    The costs per carrier associated with this rule would, on average,
be approximately four-fifths of one percent (0.82%) of their revenues
[($2,369 costs per carrier)/($288,227 revenues per carrier)] for the
first year (and about three-fifths of one percent in any subsequent
year (0.0063 = $1,810/$288,227).
    Given the cost per carrier of this rulemaking, it is important to
remember that the new rule, by reducing crashes, could also lower the
costs of operation--and for the average small business, a reduction of
just one injury crash every 142 years ($336,220/$2,369 = 142) would be
enough for the benefits to outweigh the cost of this rulemaking.
    The Agency believes the estimates presented above are reasonable
given the limited information available about this segment of the motor
carrier industry. Therefore, the Agency has made a determination that
this rule would not affect a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, FMCSA has considered the economic impacts of the
requirements on small entities and certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. FMCSA has determined
that this final rule will impact three currently-approved information
collections.

OMB Control No. 2126-0003--Inspection, Repair and Maintenance

    Motor carriers operating CMVs designed or used to transport between
9 and 15 passengers for direct compensation will be required to
maintain records of inspection, repair, and maintenance for their CMVs
in accordance with 49 CFR part 396. The information collection
requirements related to inspection, repair and maintenance have been
approved by the OMB under the provisions of the PRA and assigned OMB
Control No. 2126-0003, which expires on May 31, 2012.
    The FMCSA estimates that it will take a total annual expenditure of
11 hours and 53 minutes per year per CMV to complete the required
recordkeeping related to vehicular inspection, repair, and maintenance
(48 minutes per vehicle per year for systematic inspection, repair, and
maintenance; 5 minutes per year per vehicle for periodic inspection;
and 11 hours per year per vehicle for driver vehicle inspection
reports). The driver vehicle inspection report component requires 2
minutes 35 seconds to complete and review one report per work day when
a driver finds no defects, and 3 minutes 20 seconds to complete and
review one report and certify that repairs have been made when a driver
finds a defect. FMCSA assumes that defects are discovered in 5 percent
of driver inspections. On average, the annual burden per vehicle for
driver inspection is 11 hours [250 working days per year x ((95% no
defects x 2 minutes 35 seconds) + (5% defects x 3 minutes 20 seconds) /
60 minutes per hour) = 10.92 hours = 11 hours rounded].
    Evidence of a person's qualifications to perform periodic vehicle
inspections must be retained by the motor carrier. Evidence of a
person's qualifications to be a brake inspector must also be retained.
The creation of these two types of qualification evidence involves an
estimated one-time, non-recurring expenditure of 5 minutes by a safety

director, driver supervisor, or equivalent position for each type of
inspector. Based on an estimate of 12,200 motor carriers that will be
subject to the final rule and on the assumption that each motor carrier
has at least one employee who is a qualified periodic vehicle inspector
and one employee who is a qualified brake inspector, the estimated
total time burden related to the inspector qualifications requirement
is approximately 2,034 hours [(5 minutes for each periodic vehicle
inspector certification x 12,200 motor carriers = 1,016.66 hours =
1,017 hours rounded) + (5 minutes for each brake inspector
certification x 12,200 motor carriers = 1,016.66 hours = 1,017 hours
rounded) / 60 minutes per hour].
    The FMCSA estimates that the total inspection, repair, and
maintenance recordkeeping burden is approximately 515,394 hours in Year
1 [(43,200 CMVs x 11 hours 53 minutes per year per CMV) / 60 minutes
per hour = 513,360 hours + (2,034 hours in the first year for inspector
qualifications) = 515,394 hours] and 513,360 hours in subsequent years.
[515,394 hours - 2,034 hours (one-time, non-recurring requirement) =
513,360]. FMCSA has submitted the amended, inspection, repair, and
maintenance information collection to the OMB for review and approval.

OMB Control No. 2126-0004, Driver Qualification Files

    The FMCSA estimates that there are currently 7,000,000 CMV drivers
subject to the FMCSRs. This new regulation governing 9-15 passenger
vans will subject approximately 57,900 additional CMV drivers, and
their motor carriers, to the rules pertaining to the driver
qualification file, or ``DQ file,'' for the first time.
    The regulations pertinent to the qualifications of CMV drivers are
contained in 49 CFR part 391. The evidence of each driver's
qualifications is housed in a DQ file under that driver's name. This
file must be made available to FMCSA investigators during a compliance
review of the motor carrier. The creation, collection and maintenance
of this evidence impose numerous paperwork burdens. FMCSA has prepared
detailed descriptions of the burden of each of the paperwork-related
tasks. These descriptions are included in the supporting statement
FMCSA has filed with the OMB (OMB Control 2126-0004) contemporaneously
with publication of this final rule. That document provides a full
explanation of the paperwork burden imposed on the 9-15 passenger van
industry today and details its small increase in the overall paperwork
burden of the DQ file requirements. Because current drivers will not
have to re-apply for their positions, the burden associated with
certain aspects of the application process will not be incurred when
the rule becomes effective, but will be incurred in subsequent years as
driver positions become vacant and will need to be filled. Conversely,
current drivers will require driver record and safety performance
investigations when the rule becomes effective, but the annual review
of these qualifications will only occur in subsequent years.
    The various tasks of the DQ file requirements fall into 3
categories: Driver hiring, annual review of driving record, and safety
history responsibilities. Driver hiring includes the driver's
employment application, which FMCSA estimates requires 15 minutes on
average for the driver to complete, plus 1 minute for the motor carrier
to review. Driver hiring also includes obtaining a copy of the official
driving record of the driver from the appropriate jurisdiction(s).
FMCSA estimates that this takes an average of 5 minutes. FMCSA
estimates that the background investigation of the driver by the motor
carrier takes an average of 20 minutes, and that the carrier's
notification of the driver of his or her right to review and rebut
elements of the investigation takes 1 minute per driver. The small
percentage of CMV drivers who choose to review their history will, the
Agency estimates, take an average of 5 minutes to do so. The total
revised paperwork burden of these driver hiring tasks is 2,241,491
hours in the first year.
    The annual review of driving record includes the certificate of
violations of traffic laws in the past year that is completed by the
CMV driver. This task requires an average of 2 minutes. The motor
carrier's request for the official driving record of the driver, its
review of the record when received, and filing it, takes an average of
5 minutes. For multiple-employer drivers, the Agency estimates only 1
minute is necessary because there is no requirement to obtain the
official driving record on these drivers. When the driver is furnished
to a motor carrier by the driver's regular employer, the Agency
estimates that this task takes 3 minutes. The total revised paperwork
burden of all the tasks related to the review of driving record is
838,834 hours in the first year.
    Certain tasks related to the CMV driver's safety performance
history must be performed by the CMV driver, as well as some performed
by the hiring motor carrier, when a driver seeks to rebut the history
that previous employers have provided to the hiring motor carrier.
First, the driver-applicant consumes 3 minutes in drafting his or her
request for a copy of the safety performance history. Second, the
hiring motor carrier consumes an average of 3 minutes per request in
providing that record to the driver. Finally, those CMV drivers who
choose to formally rebut all or portions of the safety performance
history consume approximately 30 minutes in drafting and forwarding the
necessary information. The total revised paperwork burden of all the
tasks related to these driver history tasks is 198,380 hours in the
first year.
    As stated, the additional DQ file paperwork burden in year one will
differ from that in all subsequent years. The only initial burden
during the first year will be 24,125 hours to obtain driver records (5
minutes) and safety performance histories (20 minutes) on the 57,900
current 9-15-passenger van drivers. In subsequent years, there will be
18,341 hours of additional burden related to hiring drivers to fill
current positions that have become vacant; an additional 6,939
associated with the annual review of driver qualifications; and an
additional 1,641 hours for other tasks associated with the safety
performance history. In sum, the additional paperwork burden incurred
by the 9-15 passenger drivers and motor carriers with respect to DQ
files will be 26,921 hours (18,341 + 6,939 + 1,641) in subsequent
years. When 24,125 hours are added to the currently-approved DQ file
paperwork burden of 3,254,580 hours, the estimated paperwork burden of
the DQ requirements increases to 3,278,705 burden hours, an increase of
less than 1 percent in the first year.

OMB Control No. 2126-0006, Medical Qualification Requirements

    Drivers of CMVs designed or used to transport between 9 and 15
passengers for direct compensation will be required to meet the medical
examination and certification requirements at 49 CFR part 391, subpart
E. The information collection requirements related to medical
qualification requirements have been approved by OMB under the
provisions of the PRA and assigned OMB Control No. 2126-0006, which
expires on May 31, 2012.
    Under this final rule, approximately 57,900 additional drivers will
be subject to FMCSA physical qualification standards. A medical
certificate usually is valid for 2 years after the date of examination.
However, drivers with certain medical conditions must be certified more
frequently than every 2 years. In addition, some employers require
newly hired drivers to obtain a new medical certification even if the

driver's current certificate is still valid. As a result of these
exceptions to the biennial medical certification schedule, the Agency
estimates that the actual number of medical certifications conducted
annually is 31 percent greater than would be the case if all drivers
were only examined biennially. Biennial examinations would result in
approximately 28,950 medical examinations per year, but the Agency
estimates that approximately 37,925 examinations are conducted annually
[28,950 regular medical examinations x 1.31 (31% out-of-cycle medical
examinations + 28,950 regular medical examinations) = 37,925].
    It takes a medical examiner approximately 20 minutes to complete,
document, and file the medical examination report and 1 minute to
complete the medical examiner's certificate and furnish one copy to the
person who was examined and one copy to the motor carrier who employs
him or her. It takes a motor carrier approximately 1 minute to file the
medical certificate. Therefore, the annual time burden for the medical
examination and certificate requirement is approximately 13,906 hours
per year [(37,925 certificates x 22 minutes per certificate per year) /
60 minutes per hour = 13,905.83 hours = 13,906 rounded]. FMCSA has
submitted the amended, medical qualification information collection to
the OMB for review and approval.
    The total estimated additional time burden imposed by this final
rule will be 553,425 hours in Year 1 and 554,187 hours in subsequent
years as illustrated in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
                                                                                Additional       burden hours
                                                                Currently       burden hours     associated with
                      OMB control No.                        approved annual   associated with   the final rule
                                                              burden hours     the final rule     in subsequent
                                                                                in Year 1           years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-0003.................................................        59,214,494           515,394           513,360
2126-0004.................................................         3,254,580            24,125            26,921
2126-0006.................................................         1,682,701            13,906            13,906
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................        64,151,775           553,425           554,187
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Environmental Policy Act

    The FMCSA has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with all
statutory and regulatory policies under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). A copy of the final
environmental assessment is included in the docket for this rulemaking.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et
seq.), that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $141.3
million or more in any one year.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This final rule is not an economically significant rule and does
not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This final rule will not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and
it has been determined that this rulemaking does not have a substantial
direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that
would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this
document directly preempts any State law or regulation. This final rule
does not impose additional costs or burdens on the States.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 390

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle identification and
marking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FMCSA amends part 390 of
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 390--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 390 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 508, 13301, 13902, 31132, 31133, 31136,
31144, 31151, 31502, 31504; sec. 204, Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803,
941 (49 U.S.C. 701 note); sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673,
1677; sec. 212, 217, 229, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766,
1767, 1773; sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1745 and 49
CFR 1.73.

Sec.  390.3  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  390.3, remove paragraph (f)(6)(ii) and redesignate
paragraph (f)(6)(i) as paragraph (f)(6).

    Issued on: January 26, 2010.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-1955 Filed 1-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: March 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 14628]
[DOCID:fr28mr07-138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Form F-6, OMB Control No. 3235-0292, SEC File No. 270-270.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for approval.
    The Commission under Section 19 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) established Form F-6 (17 CFR 239.36) for
registration of American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) of foreign
companies. Form F-6 requires disclosure of information regarding the
terms of the depository bank, fees charged, and a description of the
ADRs. No special information regarding the foreign company is required
to be prepared or disclosed, although the foreign company must be one
which periodically furnishes information to the Commission. The
information is needed to ensure that investors in ADRs have full
disclosure of information concerning the deposit agreement and the
foreign company. Form F-6 takes approximately 1 hour per response to
prepare and is filed by 150 respondents annually. We estimate that 25%
of the 1 hour per response (.25 hours) is prepared by the filer for a
total annual reporting burden of 37.5 hours (.25 hours per response x
150 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 21, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5592 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P