68913 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
1See, e.g., Executive Order 13610, Identifying and 
Reducing Regulatory Burdens, 77 FR 28469, May 
10, 2012; Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011. 
249 CFR 1.89(a). 
387 FR 22847. 4FRA currently oversees 68 glazing-related 
waivers issued to 58 different railroads that involve 
equipment built or rebuilt before July 1, 1980, that 
will be codified by this rule. For review, FRA placed a list of these waivers in the rulemaking docket. FRA monitors a railroad’s compliance with each waiver and every five years upon the railroad’s request, FRA reviews existing waivers for possible renewal. Table F, Government Administrative Net Benefits by Year, provides the number of waivers by year that absent this rule FRA would expect to review from 2021 to 2031 or over a 10-year period of analysis. 
5Existing waivers could potentially be codified 
through the rulemaking process, as here, or they could be codified through legislation. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
Federal Railroad Administration 
49 CFR Part 223 
[Docket No. FRA–2020–0058; Notice No. 2] 
RIN 2130–AC76 
Safety Glazing Standards; Codifying 
Existing Waivers and Adding Test Flexibility 
AGENCY : Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). 
ACTION : Final rule. 
SUMMARY : FRA is amending its Safety 
Glazing Standards for exterior windows on railroad equipment to codify long- standing waivers, add a new testing option to improve consistency of glazing testing, and revise outdated section headings. The changes update and clarify existing requirements to maintain and, in some cases, enhance safety, while reducing unnecessary costs. Codification of the waivers is also consistent with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and will enable FRA to use its inspection resources more efficiently. 
DATES : This final rule is effective 
November 17, 2022. 
ADDRESSES : Docket: For access to the 
docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the 
online instructions for accessing the docket. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Gary 
Fairbanks, Staff Director, Office of Railroad Safety, telephone: 202–493– 6322, email: gary.fairbanks@dot.gov; or 
Michael Masci, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone: 202– 493–6037, email: michael.masci@dot.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information 
I. Executive Summary 
II. Background III. Discussion of American Public 
Transportation Association’s (APTA) Comment 
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 
A. Executive Order 12866 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 
Order 13272; Certification 
C. Paperwork Reduction Act D. Federalism Implications E. International Trade Impact Assessment F. Environmental Impact G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 
Justice) 
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 I. Energy Impact 
I. Executive Summary 
Purpose of the Regulatory Action 
FRA periodically reviews, and 
proposes amendments to, its regulations 
to identify ways to enhance safety and streamline and update regulatory requirements. Various Executive orders also encourage or require such reviews with an emphasis on cost-savings.
1This 
rule will maintain and, in some cases, enhance safety, while allowing FRA to make better use of its inspection resources, and reducing unnecessary costs. 
This rule also responds to the 
mandate of section 22411 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; Pub. L. 117–58). Section 22411 requires the Secretary to review and analyze existing waivers issued under 49 U.S.C. 20103 that have been in continuous effect for a 6-year period to determine whether issuing a rule consistent with the waiver is in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety. The Secretary has delegated authority to implement section 22411 to FRA.
2The notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) contained FRA’s analysis of the waivers and FRA has concluded that it is in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety to incorporate into the regulations the relevant aspects of the waivers analyzed. 
FRA is adopting this rule as effective 
on date of publication consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), as it is ‘‘a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.’’ 
Summary of the Regulatory Action 
The Safety Glazing Standards (or part 
223) contain minimum safety 
requirements for glazing materials in the windows of locomotives, passenger cars, and cabooses. FRA issued an NPRM on April 18, 2022,
3proposing to codify 
long-standing waivers, add a new testing option to improve consistency of glazing testing, and revise outdated section headings. APTA submitted the only comment in response to the NPRM. APTA’s comment expressed support for FRA’s proposal to incorporate the identified waivers into the regulations and, generally, for the new testing option. APTA raised a technical concern, however, about the new testing option (discussed in more detail in Section III below). After carefully considering APTA’s comment, FRA is issuing this final rule substantially as proposed, with only minor modifications to FRA’s proposed revisions to appendix A to part 223 (appendix A) to make clear that the use of any structurally sound cinder block, meeting the required dimensions of the appendix, is allowable for the large object impact test. 
As proposed in the NPRM, this rule 
codifies sixty-eight long-standing waivers
4that have provided certain 
older railroad equipment relief from FRA’s glazing requirements. Specifically, this final rule excludes from compliance with part 223 all locomotives, cabooses, and passenger cars built or rebuilt prior to July 1, 1980, that are operated at speeds not exceeding 30 mph, and are used only where the risk of propelled or fouling objects striking the equipment is low. Codifying these waivers through this rulemaking proceeding
5continues the 
high level of safety achieved under the waivers. It also allows FRA additional flexibility to use its inspection resources and reduces the regulatory burden on the railroad industry by eliminating the need to continue to use the waiver process for relief, while providing the railroad industry with regulatory certainty as to the applicability of part 223 to certain older equipment. 
This rule also adopts the NPRM’s 
proposal to revise appendix A to allow the use of a steel ball as an alternative to a cinder block for conducting the large object impact test appendix A requires. As explained in the NPRM, appendix A contains the performance criteria and the testing methodology for required glazing materials. Specifically, appendix A requires glazing materials to be subjected to two tests: ballistic impact and large object impact. Historically, the large object impact test in appendix A has required the use of a 24-lb cinder block of specific dimensions. As noted in the NPRM, in the early 2000s, FRA became aware that cinder blocks of the weight and dimensions appendix A requires were 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES168914 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
6The organization is currently known as ASTM 
International. no longer being manufactured and 
accordingly were becoming harder for the glazing manufacturing and railroad industries to find. Because, as discussed in detail in Section III.B of the NPRM’s preamble, and in Section III below, the steel ball test is at least equivalent to the existing cinder block test appendix A has historically required, safety will be maintained, and in some respects, enhanced, by the standardization the steel ball test provides. 
As relevant to the existing cinder 
block test appendix A has historically required, in the NPRM FRA proposed to incorporate by reference two American Society for Testing and Materials
6 
(ASTM) specifications (ASTM 
specifications C33/C33M–18 and C90– 16a) to ensure proper cement construction and integrity of the blocks. Upon further review and consideration, however, FRA recognizes that other concrete compositions can be used to construct structurally sound cinder blocks. Accordingly, FRA is not 
adopting the NPRM’s proposal to incorporate by reference the two ASTM standards, which would have required cinder blocks to meet those standards to be used for testing under appendix A. Instead, FRA is revising appendix A to make clear that any structurally sound cinder blocks may be used to meet the testing requirements of appendix A and ASTM specifications C33/C33M–18 and C90–16a are merely examples of compositions known to be structurally sound. 
Finally, FRA is revising several 
section headings in part 223 to replace terms that have become outdated. As noted in the NPRM, since 1979, when 
FRA first published part 223, use of the terms ‘‘new’’ and ‘‘existing’’ in various section headings has become confusing. Accordingly, for clarity, FRA is amending the section headings to refer to the relevant compliance dates for each section. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory 
Action 
This final rule will result in three 
quantifiable benefits. First, this final rule will eliminate the need for certain railroads to submit waiver petitions from part 223. Second, this final rule revises appendix A to allow manufacturers to use a steel ball as an alternative to a cinder block when conducting the large object impact test. Lastly, this final rule will result in net benefits to FRA because FRA subject matter experts no longer need to review 
renewal glazing standards waivers made unnecessary by the final rule. 
FRA estimates there are no costs 
associated with implementing this final rule. As shown in the following table, FRA’s estimates that this final rule will result in a net benefits of $946,000 (Present Value (PV), 3%) or $769,000 (PV, 7%). 
TOTAL NETBENEFITS , 10-Y EARPERIOD OF ANALYSIS , ROUNDED TO $1,000 
[2020 dollars] 
Type of benefit Undiscounted Present value Annualized 
3% 7% 3% 7% 
Railroads (Waiver Submissions) .......................................... $43,000 $37,000 $30,000 $4,000 $4,000 
Manufacturers (Steel Ball Option) ....................................... 77,000 65,000 54,000 8,000 8,000 
Government (FRA Waiver Review) ..................................... 1,000,000 844,000 685,000 99,000 98,000 
Total Net Benefits ......................................................... 1,121,000 946,000 769,000 111,000 109,000 
II. Background 
The NPRM discussed in detail the 
background of FRA’s existing glazing 
requirements, from FRA’s initial issuance of the requirements in 1979 through amendments made in 2016 to exclude certain equipment that is more than 50 years old and, except for incidental freight service, used only for excursion, educational, recreational, or private transportation purposes. The NPRM also explained in detail FRA’s waiver process and described the scope of existing glazing-related waivers under which individual railroads currently operate. Since 1998, FRA granted conditional relief from part 223 to approximately 200 small railroads that operate older equipment under certain circumstances (i.e., at low speeds and in 
geographical locations with no history of broken windows and low risk of future vandalism to railroad equipment). As of the date of the NPRM, FRA oversaw 68 glazing-related waivers. In granting these waivers, the NPRM explained FRA’s Railroad Safety Board 
(Board) reviewed available records and found the specific railroad operations and operating environment of each railroad demonstrated no history of injuries resulting from windows breaking on their equipment and low risk of any future injuries (i.e., no or few 
reported incidents of vandalism, no history of windows broken from propelled or fouling objects). In addition, as noted in the NPRM, the Board consistently found that, due to rising prices for materials and labor, and modifications that are necessary to adapt the window frames in the older equipment to support the increased thickness and weight of glazing in modern window designs, requiring 
railroads with older equipment and limited operations (such as those railroads that are party to the existing glazing waivers referenced in footnote 9 (87 FR 22848)) to install certified glazing would be cost-prohibitive and of limited benefit. See the discussion of Executive Order 12866 in Section V 
below. 
Given the rail industry’s long-term 
success in safely operating under these waivers, and considering APTA’s comment in support, FRA is 
incorporating the regulatory flexibility provided by the waivers into part 223. This change will eliminate the need for further waivers and the associated employee hours spent on their documentation and renewal every five years, as well as remove any industry uncertainty as to whether FRA would renew the waivers. 
III. Discussion of APTA’s Comment 
In its comment, APTA expressed 
general support for FRA’s proposal to 
exclude from part 223 older equipment operated at only low speeds in locations with low risk of objects striking equipment, recognizing the regulatory relief it will provide for its members. Based on an analysis of data in FRA’s publicly available Railroad Accident/ Incident Reporting System, APTA also 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES168915 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
787 FR 22852 (noting that the results of testing 
by the John A. Volpe National Transportation 
Systems Center (Volpe Center) indicated that the steel ball test is ‘‘potentially a more stringent test than the cinder block test’’). 
8See Touche Ross & Co. V. Redington, 442 U.S. 
560, 568 (1979) (finding that a private right of action is not automatically available following a Federal statutory violation unless the legislature intended to create such a right); FDIC v. 
Schuchmann, 235 F.3d 1217, 1223 (10th Cir. 2000) 
(finding that a statutory violation could not provide the basis for negligence per se if it is contrary to legislative intent); Schwartzman, Inc. V. Atchison, T.& S.F. Ry., 857 F.Supp. 838, 847 (D.N.M. 1994) (listing legislative intent as a factor used by courts to establish whether a private right of action like negligence per se may be properly brought). 
9See, e.g., Schwartzman, Inc., 857 F.Supp. at 847 
(‘‘The doctrine of negligence per se dictates that applicable statutes constitute the governing standard of care, and violation of those statutes is negligence as a matter of law.’’). 10In fact, although an FRA grant of a waiver 
petition often results in two separate Federal standards, FRA is not aware of such liability concerns adhering to the Federal standard established by the waiver grant. FRA has authority to waive regulatory requirements if such waiver is in the public’s interest and consistent with railroad safety (49 U.S.C. 20103). To ensure waivers are consistent with railroad safety, FRA typically includes conditions to any granted waiver petition, and these conditions may include alternative methods for compliance. At times, FRA has waived regulatory requirements to approve and monitor a test/pilot program to help establish a safe alternative—the alternative being the governing Federal standard. 
11See, e.g., Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., Ct. 
of App. of N.Y., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 NE 99 (N.Y. 1928); Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 
Cal.2d 57 (1963). 
12APTA comment at page 2 (asserting that a 
thicker piece of glazing ‘‘may’’ be required as a result of the steel ball test). 
13The Volpe Center report, summarized in the 
NPRM, shows that the glazing samples tested that withstood the cinder block test also withstood the steel ball test when a spall shield was added. The spall shield was less than a millimeter thick. Based on the Volpe Center research, if a manufacturer adds a spall shield to glazing material that passes the cinder block test, it will pass the steel ball test and have no impact on its installation on railroad equipment, whether or not it would otherwise require a spall shield to pass the steel ball test. expressed the view that the current 24- 
lb cinder block test ‘‘appears to be adequate’’ to prevent serious incidents resulting from glazing being compromised. However, APTA expressed concern that the proposed steel ball test is more stringent than the cinder block test. APTA asserted that the ‘‘proposed 12-pound steel sphere test is more demanding than the current cinder block testing because not all the kinetic energy is imparted to the glazing sample being tested since the cinder block itself consumes some of the kinetic energy as it breaks apart upon contact with the glazing.’’ 
Given their premise that the steel ball 
test is more stringent than the cinder block test, APTA also expressed concern that if a railroad qualifies glazing using the cinder block test method, instead of the more stringent steel ball method, a railroad may be held liable for damages or injuries if the glazing is compromised. 
Additionally, APTA generally 
asserted that the proposed alternative steel ball test will require railroad equipment to be re-designed or retrofitted to potentially accommodate thicker glass to pass the more stringent steel ball test. Although APTA generally asserted that equipment will need to be redesigned and retrofitted because a ‘‘thicker piece of glazing may be required,’’ APTA’s comment did not provide any evidence or analysis to support this assertion. The comment did not specify what adjustments to railroad equipment or glazing material APTA believes would potentially be needed. APTA noted, however, that it has an industry working group currently working on establishing a method to scale the kinetic energy for the large object impact test to account for the kinetic energy that is typically absorbed by the cinder block when the block impacts the glazing. In other words, FRA understands that APTA has a working group charged with researching and developing an equivalent testing method to the cinder block test. 
Accordingly, for each of the reasons 
outlined in its comment, APTA recommended that FRA reconsider its methodology and identify an alternative test method that provides an equivalent, not more stringent, level of safety, potentially incorporating results from its working group. 
As acknowledged in the NPRM, FRA 
agrees with APTA that the steel ball test may be more stringent than the cinder block test.
7However, that is not a reason, in itself, to forgo adding the 
proposed steel ball test as an alternative testing methodology. FRA’s primary purpose for adding the steel ball test is to ensure safety is not diminished, and, where possible, to enhance safety. Adding a test option that is potentially more stringent will ensure the current 
level of safety is maintained or enhanced. In addition, FRA finds that adding the proposed steel ball test provides needed flexibility for manufacturers, and any others, responsible for testing glazing material, particularly given that cinder blocks of the weight and dimensions required by part 223 are no longer being manufactured. FRA expects glazing manufacturers may use the steel ball test because the steel ball is easier to acquire than a conforming cinder block and the steel ball test will result in net benefits as compared to the cinder block test. If a glazing manufacturer decides not to use the steel ball test, because it is too stringent or for any other reason, the cinder block test will remain in part 223 as an acceptable means to qualify glazing materials. As such, while the steel ball test may be more stringent than the cinder block test, it will not have any significant impact on manufacturing. 
The precise legal nature of APTA’s 
liability concerns is unclear. FRA’s allowance of an alternative testing methodology would not create a difference in liability based on the use of one test over another. Part 223 does not provide for a private right of action for damages for non-compliance.
8 
Additionally, negligence per se is 
available as a legal claim only when a regulation is violated.
9As proposed in 
the NPRM, a manufacturer could comply with part 223 by qualifying glazing material using either the cinder block or steel ball test. If a manufacturer chose to comply using the cinder block test, there would be no violation to support a negligence per se claim. Thus, it is unclear how using a compliant test 
would result in undue liability as APTA alleges in its comments.
10However, 
according to the general principles of tort law, negligence may be available as a claim if either test is performed incorrectly, and a resulting injury occurs; these principles are true regardless of this rule.
11 
FRA also determined that APTA’s 
general comment about the need for the redesign or retrofitting of equipment to accommodate thicker glass is without merit. APTA’s comment does not provide evidence or detailed analysis to support this assertion. The comment does not specify what adjustments to railroad equipment would be needed, and APTA does not provide an estimate for how thick the glass would need to be or dimensions for railroad equipment designed to secure the glass. Moreover, as APTA acknowledges in its comment, it is not clear that the glass would need to be thicker.
12Based on the results of 
the Volpe Center report referenced in the NPRM, FRA does not expect that any retrofitting will be required.
13 
FRA appreciates and looks forward to 
the results of APTA’s working group addressing glazing on railroad equipment, but for the reasons noted 
above, FRA finds that allowing for the alternative steel ball testing methodology as proposed in the NPRM is in the best interests of safety at this time. The alternative testing methodology will provide industry flexibility needed to continue testing in a standardized and repeatable way 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES168916 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
14‘‘Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis’’ (Sep. 17, 
2003), available at https://obamawhitehouse.
archives.gov/omb/circulars_ a004_ a-4. See Section 
E(2) Developing a Baseline. under appendix A, and accordingly, this 
final rule adopts the alternative steel ball testing methodology as proposed in the NPRM. 
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 
As noted above, with one exception 
(noted in the analysis of appendix A 
below), FRA is adopting the proposals set forth in the NPRM without change. 
This section-by-section analysis is 
intended to explain the rationale for each revised or new provision of the rule. The regulatory changes are organized by section number and with the exception of the analysis of appendix A, the analyses below are consistent with those included in the NPRM. 
223.3 Application 
Section 223.3 sets forth the scope and 
applicability of part 223. Former 
paragraph (b) excluded from part 223’s applicability certain types of equipment and operations. For the reasons explained in the NPRM, this final rule adds new paragraph (b)(5) to exclude locomotives, cabooses, and passenger cars built or rebuilt prior to July 1, 1980, that are operated at speeds not exceeding 30 mph, and used only where there is low risk of propelled or fouling objects striking the equipment. Risk factors include reported incidents of propelled or fouling objects striking rail equipment, or infrastructure conditions or other operating environment conditions that have led or are likely to lead to objects striking rail equipment in operation. Paragraph (b)(5) provides that risk is presumed low, unless the railroad operating the equipment has knowledge, or FRA makes a showing, that specific risk factors exist. As explained in the NPRM, FRA will determine whether there is low risk primarily based on FRA’s observations during routine inspections and from any reported incidents of propelled or fouling objects striking rail equipment in operation, and FRA expects the operating railroad to inform FRA of any such incidents known to the railroad. If FRA has reason to believe there have been incidents of propelled or fouling objects striking equipment in operation, FRA may investigate further. As part of its investigation, FRA may contact local law enforcement for more information, in determining the risk level. 
223.9 Requirements for Equipment 
Built or Rebuilt After June 30, 1980 
As proposed in the NPRM, this final 
rule revises the heading of this section to reflect the requirements of the section more accurately (i.e., to reflect that the section applies to equipment built or rebuilt after June 30, 1980). 
223.11 Requirements for Locomotives 
Built or Rebuilt Prior to July 1, 1980 
Similar to the revisions to § 223.9 
discussed directly above, this final rule revises the heading of this section to reflect the requirements of the section more accurately (i.e., to reflect that the 
section applies to locomotives built or rebuilt prior to July 1, 1980). 
223.13 Requirements for Cabooses 
Built or Rebuilt Prior to July 1, 1980 
Similar to the revisions to §§ 223.9 
and 223.11 discussed directly above, this final rule revises the heading of this section to reflect the requirements of the section more accurately (i.e., to reflect 
that the section applies to cabooses built or rebuilt prior to July 1, 1980). 
223.15 Requirements for Passenger 
Cars Built or Rebuilt Prior to July 1, 1980 
Similar to the revisions to §§ 223.9, 
223.11, and 223.13 discussed directly above, this final rule revises the heading of this section to reflect the requirements of the section more accurately (i.e., to reflect that the section 
applies to passenger cars built or rebuilt prior to July 1, 1980). 
Appendix A to Part 223—Certification 
of Glazing Materials 
As discussed above, and as proposed 
in the NPRM, FRA is revising this appendix to provide the option to use a 12-lb steel ball as an alternative to a 24- lb cinder block for large object impact testing when certifying glazing under part 223. In doing so, FRA is making miscellaneous, conforming changes to existing requirements. A detailed analysis of those changes is included in the NPRM document, with the only difference being the changes to paragraphs b.(10) and (11) adopted in this final rule. 
In the NPRM, FRA proposed to revise 
paragraphs b.(10) and (11), to incorporate by reference ASTM standards C90–16a, ‘‘Standard Specification for Loadbearing Concrete Masonry Units,’’ 2016, and ASTM C33/ 33M–18, ‘‘Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates,’’ 2018. In proposing to incorporate these standards by reference, FRA noted that both specifications ‘‘provide options for the precise cinder block makeup used in the large object impact tests.’’ After further consideration, however, FRA recognizes that other concrete compositions can be used to construct structurally sound cinder blocks. Accordingly, FRA is not adopting the NPRM’s proposal to incorporate by 
reference ASTM standards C90–16A and C33/C33M–18. Instead, FRA is revising paragraphs b.(10) and (11) to make clear that any structurally sound cinder blocks may be used to meet the testing requirements of appendix A and to identify the two ASTM standards as 
examples of compositions known to be structurally sound. 
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 
This final rule is a nonsignificant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ FRA made this determination by finding that the economic effects of this final rule will not exceed the $100 million annual threshold defined by Executive Order 12866. FRA estimates that over a ten-year period of analysis this final rule will at least maintain, and possibly enhance, safety, while also providing net benefits for both the industry and FRA. 
This final rule amends part 223 in two 
substantive ways. First, this final rule codifies long-standing waivers that exclude old rail equipment from the certified safety window glazing requirements, provided the railroads that use such equipment comply with FRA-required operating conditions. Second, this final rule adds a steel ball test option to appendix A that a manufacturer may use in lieu of the currently specified cinder block test option. 
FRA complied with Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A–4 when accounting for benefits, costs, and net benefits relative to a baseline condition. Typically, a baseline condition represents a best judgement about what the world would look like in absence of the regulatory intervention.
14Without this final rule, 
small railroads that operate under part 223 waiver exemption would every five years need to apply for a renewal of their part 223 waiver exemption. Also, without this final rule manufacturers would continue using a customized cinder block when performing Type I and Type II large object impact tests to certify that new window glazing materials are part 223 complaint. 
Waivers From Part 223 
As discussed above in ‘‘II. 
Background,’’ the Safety Board found 
that mandating railroads with older equipment install certified glazing 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES168917 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
15FRA has recently used the term ‘‘long- 
standing’’ waivers in the rule on ‘‘Miscellaneous 
Amendments to Brake System Standards and 
Codification of Waivers,’’ 85 FR 80544 (Dec. 11, 2020). See also the rule’s corresponding regulatory impact analysis (RIA) in www.regulations.gov, 
docket no. FRA–2018–0093, notice no. 2, document ‘‘2130–AC67 final rule RIA to 12–10–2020.’’ 
16Based on the railroads that are required to 
report accident/incidents to FRA under part 225, as of 2021 FRA estimates there are approximately 768 
Class III railroads, with 733 of them operating on the general system. would be cost-prohibitive. Such costs 
would include materials and labor costs, including the costs to remove existing window frames in older equipment and replace them with new frames that are compatible with compliant glazing to support the increased thickness and weight of glazing in modern window designs. The cost to install certified glazing may exceed the value of the rail equipment itself. Moreover, FRA expects that even if such installation took place, limited safety-related benefits would follow, because older equipment generally operates at low speeds and in areas with low safety risk. For these reasons, FRA previously granted these part 223 waiver requests. 
When estimating benefits and costs 
that comes from the final rule, this analysis assumed a baseline where FRA’s approval of part 223 waivers resembles historical practice. 
Historically, FRA reviews two types of waivers: (1) ongoing or long-standing waivers
15and (2) test, pilot waivers, or 
waivers that FRA approved for a period of time less than 10 years. Long- standing waivers cover more familiar and proven technology and have previously undergone the renewal process. Renewal requests for long- standing waivers require less effort for applicants and FRA, as compared to renewal requests for waivers. For this economic analysis, FRA defines long- standing waivers as any active waiver that FRA approved for a period of time of 10 years or longer. Test or pilot waivers, or waivers that FRA approved for a period of time less than 10 years, require extensive technical analysis and investigation by stakeholders during the initial waiver application and first waiver renewal. 
A waiver’s benefits and costs are 
based on industry application of technologies and procedures, which are presumably less restrictive than the underlying regulation. However, 
continuation of a waiver (and the associated net benefits and regulatory relief) is subject to the uncertainty regarding whether FRA will approve the waiver renewal request during the periodic waiver review process. Currently, only Class III railroads operated rail equipment under waiver from part 223. Based upon previous requests of waiver from part 223, FRA estimates the final rule will provide net benefits to 58 of the 733 (8 percent) Class III railroads.
16 
Long-standing waivers (i.e., active 
waivers that FRA initially approved more than 10 years ago) from part 223 reflect familiar uncertified glazing technologies and safe operating conditions for which FRA has granted short line railroads waiver renewals. Because railroads operated under uncertified window glazing permitted 
by waivers under FRA-required operating conditions for a long time, they have essentially ‘‘built-in’’ these waivers into their business practices. FRA historic inspection data indicates that railroads have operated safely with these waivers for approximately 25 years, so it is reasonable to assume that FRA would continue to approve any such waiver renewal request going forward. In a world without this final rule, or the baseline condition, the continuation of these long-standing waivers is a reasonable estimation. Therefore, a net benefit that comes from this final rule is the reduced burden on Class III railroads to submit part 223 waiver renewal requests for long- standing waivers and the reduced burden on FRA to process such waiver renewal requests. 
Costs for railroads to renew more 
recent waivers (i.e., test, pilot waivers, 
or waivers that FRA approved for less than 10 years) are higher than the costs for renewing long-standing waivers. First, more recent waivers are subject to 
more extensive review and analysis. 
FRA may also modify conditions of more recent waivers by imposing restrictions to maintain and in some cases enhance safety. Second, more recent waiver renewal requests include a degree of uncertainty, because FRA’s renewal of more recent waivers is not assured. Therefore, this analysis estimates the impact from codifying more recent waivers as the costs and benefits that result from the waiver application process and safety procedures in lieu of the regulatory requirements absent this final rule. This analysis also estimates the reduced burden on FRA associated with processing waiver renewal requests. 
Addition of Steel Ball Test Option in 
Appendix A 
This final rule revises appendix A to 
allow manufacturers to use a steel ball in lieu of a cinder block when conducting Type I and Type II large object impact tests. This revision will not result in any costs, because stakeholders may still use a cinder block when complying with the large object impact test requirements. However, this analysis determined that after the implementation of this final rule that all manufacturers will use the steel ball test option, as the steel ball test option costs less relative to the existing cinder block test option. 
Overall, this analysis found that the 
final rule will codify window glazing waivers, reduce window glazing manufacturers’ window glazing certification costs, and eliminate the Federal Government’s requirement to review and approve these waivers. As shown in Table A, issuing the final rule will result in net benefits of $946,000 (Present Value (PV), 3%) and $769,000 (PV, 7%). 
TABLE A—S UMMARY OF TOTAL NETBENEFITS OVER THE 10-Y EARPERIOD , ROUNDED $1,000 
[2020 dollars] 
Type of benefit Undiscounted Present value Annualized 
3% 7% 3% 7% 
Railroads (Waiver Submissions) .......................................... $43,000 $37,000 $30,000 $4,000 $4,000 
Manufacturers (Steel Ball Option) ....................................... 77,000 65,000 54,000 8,000 8,000 
Government (FRA Waiver Review) ..................................... 1,000,000 844,000 685,000 99,000 98,000 
Total Net Benefits ......................................................... 1,121,000 946,000 769,000 111,000 109,000 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES168918 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
17District inspectors verify safe conditions with 
the police if they find any evidence window glazing 
has been damaged or replaced. 
18Standard operating procedures include 
periodic updates of the FRA Motive Power and Equipment Compliance Manual, which will be expected with the issuance of this rule. 19Total number of waiver renewals: 10-year 
period = Number of existing waivers (68) * number 
of waiver renewal requests per waiver (2) = 136. 
20Inputs are based on expertise drawn from 
FRA’s Motive Power and Equipment Division, unless otherwise noted. 
21The ‘‘burdened’’ wage rate multiplies the STB 
wage rate by a factor of 1.75 to account for fringe 
and overhead benefits. 22Source: STB, 2020, professional and 
administrative employees, group #200; burdened 
wage rate = $44.25 * 1.75 benefits rate = $77.44, https://www.stb.gov/reports-data/economic-data/ quarterly-wage-ab-data/. 
23Total costs per waiver renewal submission = 4 
(labor hours per waiver) * $77.44 (hourly labor 
burdened wage rate) + $10 (mailing costs) = $319.75. Railroad Net Benefits 
In 1979, FRA issued part 223 and 
generally established minimum safety 
requirements for glazing materials in the windows of locomotives, passenger cars, and cabooses. FRA has traditionally granted waiver requests to small railroads that operate such vehicles in existence at the time the regulation was promulgated, at speeds up to 30 mph, on rail tracks located in areas where railroad reports and FRA observations, as well as police records, show little risk of objects, such as cinder blocks and bullets, striking rail equipment. Once initial waiver requests are approved, recipients must resubmit waiver requests to FRA every five years to continue to operate such vehicles. During the waiver approval process, FRA field inspectors verify safe conditions and contact local police, if appropriate.
17FRA historical records of 
the part 223 waiver approval process confirm that, from 1998 to April 2020, no railroad operating under waiver from part 223’s requirements reported any incident resulting from use of windows not conforming to part 223’s requirements. Based on this documented safety history and FRA’s 
standard practice for evaluating waiver requests,
18FRA is confident that 
codifying window glazing waivers serves the public interest by providing small railroads permanent regulatory relief while preserving safety on the general railroad system. The final rule also adds a steel ball test option to the window glazing certification process. FRA expects this amendment will reduce glazing certification costs. 
Immediately prior to this final rule, 58 
railroads operated rolling stock under 68 waivers from part 223. Absent this final rule, in order to continue to operate under waiver to part 223, these railroads had to resubmit waiver applications every 5 years. Based on historical waiver application submissions, FRA expects the annual number of part 223 waiver submission would vary over a 10-year period of analysis. For example, there were 8 waiver submissions in 2021 (originated in 2001, 2006, and 2011) and FRA expects that railroads would submit 11 waiver renewal requests in 2022 (originated in 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017). Over the next 10 years, this analysis estimates that railroads would submit two waiver renewal requests for each active part 223 waiver, or 136 waiver renewal requests over the 10- year period of analysis.
19For the 
purpose of estimating net benefits that would come from codifying part 223 waivers, this analysis assumes that year 1 net benefits would follow from the observed number of waiver renewal applications in calendar year 2021. Continuing, this analysis assumes that year 2 net benefits related to codifying part 223 waivers would follow from the anticipated reduction in wavier renewal applications expected to occur in calendar year 2022. In Table B, FRA presents the railroad industry’s net benefits based upon the following inputs.
20 
•There are 68 active waiver 
exemptions to the glazing standards. 
•Over the 10-year period of analysis, 
railroads will submit two waiver exemption requests for each active waiver exemption to the glazing standards. 
•This analysis assumes that Class III 
railroad administrative burden follows similarly to Class I railroad administrative burden. As such, this analysis used Surface Transportation Board (STB) wage data to estimate the railroad administrative burdened
21 
wage rate of $77.44 per hour.22 
•Each railroad waiver submission 
requires 4 hours of railroad administrative labor. 
•The copying and mailing cost for a 
waiver renewal submission is $10 per waiver renewal submission. 
•Total cost per waiver equals 
$319.75.
23 
Over the 10-year period of analysis, 
these Class III railroads will realize a net benefit of about $37,000 (PV, 3%) and $30,000 (PV, 7%). 
TABLE B—R AILROAD NETBENEFITS BY YEAR 
[2020 dollars] 
Year Number of 
waivers Undiscounted Discount rate 
3% 7% 
Year 1 .............................................................................................................. 8 $2,558 $2 ,483 $2,391 
Year 2 .............................................................................................................. 11 3,517 3, 315 3,072 
Year 3 .............................................................................................................. 14 4,477 4, 097 3,654 
Year 4 .............................................................................................................. 18 5,756 5, 114 4,391 
Year 5 .............................................................................................................. 17 5,436 4, 689 3,876 
Year 6 .............................................................................................................. 8 2,558 2,1 42 1,705 
Year 7 .............................................................................................................. 11 3,517 2, 860 2,190 
Year 8 .............................................................................................................. 14 4,477 3, 534 2,605 
Year 9 .............................................................................................................. 18 5,756 4, 411 3,131 
Year 10 ............................................................................................................ 17 5,436 4,045 2,763 
Total .......................................................................................................... 136 44,000 37,000 30,000 
Annualized ................................................................................................ ..................... ... ........................ 4,300 4,200 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES168919 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
2487 FR 22852. 
25Assumptions are based on expertise from 
FRA’s Motive Power and Equipment Division. 
26This analysis does not consider the impact on 
foreign manufacturers. 27United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2020, 
17–2131 Materials Engineer, Materials engineer wage rate = $48.34. Materials engineer burdened rate = 1.75 * $48.34 = $84.60. Source: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes_ nat.htm. 28Total cinder block tests cost per year = 15 * ($6 
+ $847) = $12,790, where $6.00 is the per test cinder 
block cost and $847 is the per test labor cost. 
29The steel ball costs per test include 4 hours of 
labor. Four labor hours * $84.60 = $339. There are 15 tests per year. Labor cost of steel ball tests per year = 15 tests * $339 = $5,080. Manufacturer Net Benefits 
This analysis concluded that the 
amendment of appendix A that allows 
manufacturers to use a steel ball when conducting Type I and Type II large object impact tests will reduce manufacturers’ testing costs and technical development costs. Previously, these tests required the rectangular edge of an 8″ by 8″ by 16″ 
cinder block weighing 24 lbs to strike a 
glazed window under specified conditions without penetrating the back side of the glass. Cinder blocks meeting these part 223 specification parameters are no longer manufactured. Therefore, in order to perform the large impact tests using a cinder block, materials engineers need to customize currently available cinder blocks. This additional customization step increases the testing labor burden by two hours, and increases the testing burden beyond what was anticipated when part 223 was promulgated. 
The Volpe Center report discussed in 
the NPRM,
24verified that a 12-lb steel 
ball can achieve the same kinetic energy as the cinder block. In addition, manufacturers may use the same steel ball for all glazing certification tests that they perform, while they must replace each cinder block after one glazing certification test because a cinder block’s rectangular edge becomes damaged beyond repair during each Type I and Type II large object impact test. When estimating the 
manufacturers’ labor and material net benefits that come from amending appendix A to allow for the steel ball test option, this analysis made the following assumptions:
25 
•Worldwide there are five railroad 
vehicle glazing manufacturers; three domestic and two foreign manufacturers.
26 
•Each domestic manufacturer will 
conduct five tests per year and will save approximately $500 per test. In total, the 3 domestic manufacturers will conduct 15 tests per year and save approximately $7,500 per year. 
•Each cinder block is damaged and 
rendered unusable after each Type I and Type II large object impact test. 
•Manufacturers will purchase and 
prepare four cinder blocks per test pass. Two cinder blocks per test pass are required; one cinder block for the Type I test and one cinder block for the Type II test. However, this analysis included two additional cinder blocks per test to ensure that manufacturers had extra cinder blocks on hand in case issues arose with the initial test pass. 
•The cost of a cinder block is $1.50 
or $6 for four cinder blocks. 
•Each cinder block test requires 10 
labor hours, e.g., 2 hours to customize 
the cinder block and 8 hours to run the cinder block test. 
•After FRA implements this final 
rule, when conducting the Type I and 
Type II large object impact tests, all glazing manufacturers will use the steel 
ball option. 
•Each steel ball costs $75. This 
analysis assumes each of the three domestic manufacturers will purchase one steel ball at the beginning of the first year of the analysis for a combined cost of $225. These one-time costs are subtracted from the year 1 net benefits shown in Table D. Steel ball costs are not included in Table C per test net benefits. FRA assumes that manufacturers will continue to use the steel ball test option after year 10, but this analysis does not assign any residual value to the steel ball after the 10-year period of analysis. 
•Materials engineers conduct the 
certification tests at a burdened hourly wage of $84.60.
27 
As shown in Table C, this analysis 
expects that each domestic window glazing manufacturer will save approximately $500 per test by using 
the steel ball test option in lieu of the existing cinder block test. Over the 10- year period of analysis, the three domestic manufacturers will realize a net benefit of about $65,000 (PV, 3%) or $54,000 (PV, 7%). The final rule will also result in unquantified environmental benefits as glazing manufacturers reduce the purchase and landfill disposal of cinder blocks, yet FRA lacks sufficient data to quantify these environmental benefits. 
TABLE C—M ANUFACTURER NETBENEFITS  
[2020 dollars] 
Expense Large object 
costs per test Labor hours 
per test Labor costs 
per test Total costs 
per test Large object 
costs 15 tests Labor costs 15 
tests Total costs 
per year 
Cinder block ................. $6 10 $847 $853 $90 $12,700 28$12,790 
Steel Ball after first 
year ........................... 0 4 339 339 0 5,080 295,080 
Annual net benefits ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........... ............. ........................ 7,710 
Net benefits per 
test ..................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 514 
TABLE D—M ANUFACTURER NETBENEFITS BY YEAR 
[2020 dollars] 
Year Number of 
tests Undiscounted Present value 
3% 7% 
Year 1 .............................................................................................................. 15 $7,474 $ 7,256 $6,985 
Year 2 .............................................................................................................. 15 7,699 7, 257 6,725 
Year 3 .............................................................................................................. 15 7,699 7, 046 6,285 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES168920 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
30U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 
2020 Salaries & Wages. OPM general wage rates are 
listed here: GS 12 District Staff from Rest of the US (RUS) https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/ pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/ RUS_ h.pdf; GS 12, 13, 15 DOT Headquarters Staff 
from DC Metropolitan Area (DCB): https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/ salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/DCB_ h.pdf; 
SES from Mid-Level III: https://www.opm.gov/ policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/ salary-tables/pdf/2020/EX.pdf. TABLE D—M ANUFACTURER NETBENEFITS BY YEAR—Continued 
[2020 dollars] 
Year Number of 
tests Undiscounted Present value 
3% 7% 
Year 4 .............................................................................................................. 15 7,699 6, 841 5,874 
Year 5 .............................................................................................................. 15 7,699 6, 641 5,489 
Year 6 .............................................................................................................. 15 7,699 6, 448 5,130 
Year 7 .............................................................................................................. 15 7,699 6, 260 4,795 
Year 8 .............................................................................................................. 15 7,699 6, 078 4,481 
Year 9 .............................................................................................................. 15 7,699 5, 901 4,188 
Year 10 ............................................................................................................ 15 7,699 5,729 3,914 
Total .......................................................................................................... 150 76,766 65,456 53,865 
Potential Industry Cost Due to Legal 
Liability and Equipment Redesign or Retrofitting 
FRA received one public comment 
about the economic impact that the proposed rule may have on the industry. APTA’s comment expressed support for FRA’s proposal to incorporate the identified waivers into the regulations and generally for the new steel ball testing option. However, APTA also expressed concern that the proposed steel ball test is more stringent than the existing cinder block test method. APTA asserted that, in order to pass the more stringent steel ball test, an entity may need to re-design or retrofit its railroad equipment in order to accommodate a thicker piece of glazing material. APTA’s comment did not provide any evidence or analysis to support this assertion, nor did it specify the type of adjustments that an entity would need to make to railroad equipment or glazing material. Based on input from FRA subject matter experts, this analysis concluded that APTA’s general comment about the need to redesign or retrofit equipment to accommodate thicker glass is without merit. 
Proposal to Incorporate by Reference 
Two American Society for Testing and Materials Specifications 
As relevant to the existing cinder 
block test in appendix A that FRA has historically required, in the proposed rule FRA planned to incorporate by reference two ASTM specifications (ASTM specifications C33/C33M–18 and C90–16a) to ensure proper cement construction and integrity of the blocks. 
Had FRA required manufacturers to comply with ASTM specification standards, manufacturers may have had a de minimis cost associated with 
purchasing the aforementioned ASTM standards, if the manufacturers did not currently subscribe to ASTM’s standards subscription service. Upon further review and consideration, however, FRA recognizes that other concrete compositions can be used to construct structurally sound cinder blocks. Accordingly, FRA is not adopting the NPRM’s proposal to incorporate by reference the two ASTM standards so that only cinder blocks meeting those standards could be used under appendix A. Rather, FRA is revising appendix A to make clear that any structurally sound cinder blocks may be used to meet the testing requirements of appendix A. Therefore, ASTM specifications C33/C33M–18 and C90–16a are merely examples of compositions known to be structurally sound. Because this change from the NPRM to the final rule removes the proposed incorporation by reference of specific ASTM standards, there is no related cost. Also, the removal of the 
proposed incorporation by reference adds an unquantified benefit of additional flexibility to manufacturers with regard to where they may source cinder blocks. 
Federal Government Net Benefits 
Table E and Table F, below, estimate 
the Federal Government net benefits 
expected from this final rule. FRA will no longer receive numerous petitions from railroads requesting waiver from compliance with the window glazing requirements, which will save time and expense FRA previously spent on the waiver review and decision process. Specifically, as noted above, FRA currently oversees 68 glazing-related waivers, subject to renewal every five years. As part of the waiver process, an FRA inspector spends one to two days investigating each glazing waiver renewal request and reporting the findings. Additionally, an FRA subject matter expert spends one to two days reviewing the inspector’s report and drafting a recommendation memorandum to the Safety Board and a notice to publish in the Federal Register for each waiver renewal request. 
FRA estimates the net benefit from 
eliminating one railroad window glazing waiver review and decision is approximately $7,400 at the burdened wage rate. FRA net benefits estimates are based on the reduction of labor hours at the 2020 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) pay grade levels as shown below.
30Hours were considered 
at the burdened wage rate by multiplying the actual wage rate by 175 percent. 
FRA’s waiver review and decision 
typically require contributions from employees earning salaries at General Schedule (GS) pay grades 12, 14, and 15, and employees earning Senior Executive Service (SES) salaries. Table E shows the hours and wage rates for Government employees reviewing and issuing decisions for part 223 waiver requests. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES168921 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
315 U.S.C. 603(a). TABLE E—FRA W AIVER REVIEW WAGERATES BY GENERAL SCHEDULE PAYGRADES  
Burdened 
wage rate 
(wage * 1.75) Hours Total 
unburden Total burden 
GS–12 (RUS) ....................................................................... $41.66 $72.91 12 $500 $875 
GS–12 (DCB) ....................................................................... 46.88 82.04 4 188 328 
GS–14 (DCB) ....................................................................... 65.88 115.29 36 2,372 4,150 
GS–15 (DCB) ....................................................................... 77.49 135.61 8 620 1,085 
SES ...................................................................................... 87.26 152.71 6 524 916 
Total cost per waiver .................................................... ........................ ........................ ...... .................. 4,200 7,400 
Table F provides the yearly net 
benefits of eliminating the Federal 
Government’s burden of reviewing 136 waivers over the next 10 years. Codifying the active glazing waivers will allow FRA inspectors to perform other essential inspection duties and will also allow headquarters staff to spend their time on other issues that may have a larger impact on maintaining and improving safety on the general railroad system. 
TABLE F—G OVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE NETBENEFITS BY YEAR 
Year Number of 
waivers Burdened 
wage rate 
undiscounted Discount rate 
3% 7% 
Year 1 .............................................................................................................. 8 $58,836 $ 57,123 $54,987 
Year 2 .............................................................................................................. 11 80,900 7 6,256 70,661 
Year 3 .............................................................................................................. 14 102,964 94,226 84,049 
Year 4 .............................................................................................................. 18 132,382 117,620 100,994 
Year 5 .............................................................................................................. 17 125,027 107,850 89,143 
Year 6 .............................................................................................................. 8 58,836 49 ,275 39,205 
Year 7 .............................................................................................................. 11 80,900 6 5,779 50,380 
Year 8 .............................................................................................................. 14 102,964 81,280 59,926 
Year 9 .............................................................................................................. 18 132,382 101,460 72,007 
Year 10 ............................................................................................................ 17 125,027 9 3,032 63,558 
Total .......................................................................................................... 136 1,000,219 84 4,000 685,000 
Annualized ................................................................................................ ..................... ... ........................ 99,000 97,500 
Over the 10-year period of analysis, 
the final rule will codify window glazing waivers, reduce window glazing manufacturers’ window glazing certification costs, and eliminate the Federal Government’s requirement to review and approve these waivers. The final rule will result in net benefits of $946,000 (PV, 3%) or $769,000 (PV, 
7%). 
TABLE G—S UMMARY OF TOTAL NETBENEFITS OVER THE 10-Y EARPERIOD , ROUNDED $1,000 
[2020 dollars] 
Type of benefit Undiscounted Present value Annualized 
3% 7% 3% 7% 
Railroads (Waiver Submissions) .......................................... $43,000 $37,000 $30,000 $4,000 $4,000 
Manufacturers (Steel Ball Option) ....................................... 77,000 65,000 54,000 8,000 8,000 
Government (FRA Waiver Review) ..................................... 1,000,000 844,000 685,000 99,000 98,000 
Total Net Benefits ......................................................... 1,121,000 946,000 769,000 111,000 109,000 
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 
Executive Order 13272; Certification 
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive Order 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require agency review of 
proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small entities. When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the RFA requires the agency to ‘‘prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis’’ 
which will ‘‘describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.’’
31 
Section 605 of the RFA allows an 
agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Out of an abundance of caution, FRA 
prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) to accompany the NPRM, which noted no expected significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FRA made the IRFA available for public comment and did not receive any comments that related to small entities. 
This final rule is amending Safety 
Glazing Standards for exterior windows 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES168922 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
32Based on the railroads that are required to 
report accident/incidents to FRA under part 225, 
FRA estimates there are approximately 768 Class III railroads, with 733 of them operating on the general system. 
33North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) Code 327211 signifies the Flat Glass and 
Glazing Manufacturing Firms that would be affected by this proposal. Per SBA, any firm under NAICS code 327211 that employs more than 1,000 
employees cannot qualify as a small business. See U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification Codes, effective January 1, 2017. https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/ files/2019/08/SBA%20Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_
Effective%20Aug%2019%2C%202019.pdf. 
3444 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
35The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 
STB’s 2020 Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that includes a 75-percent overhead charge. on railroad equipment to codify long- 
standing waivers and add a new testing option to improve consistency of glazing testing. This final rule will apply to 58 of the 733 (8 percent) Class III railroads that are small entities and three manufacturers that are not small entities.
32As enumerated in the IRFA 
and in the full Regulatory Impact and Notices section of this final rule, over the 10-year period of analysis, issuing this final rule will result in 136 fewer waiver requests by Class III railroads. The net benefit from this final rule that comes to Class III railroads is $30,000 (PV, 7%). Per year on average, this final rule will result in a net benefit of $51 for each affected Class III railroad. The final rule also includes a steel ball test method that manufacturers may use instead of the existing cinder block test method. However, the three domestic manufacturers impacted by this final 
rule are not small businesses.
33 
When developing the final rule, FRA 
considered the impact that the final rule would have on small entities. To provide flexibility in cinder block method testing, FRA made a change from the NPRM to the final rule. In 
appendix A, FRA removed the proposed incorporation by reference of specific ASTM standards and made it clear that the use of any structurally sound cinder block meeting the required dimensions of appendix A is allowable for the large object impact test. This change provides additional flexibility in the sourcing of cinder blocks and also reduces the burden of manufacturers to obtain the stated ASTM specifications standard. 
FRA received one public comment 
from APTA that relates to the impact 
that the NPRM may have on small entities. As stated above, FRA did not make any changes from the NPRM stage to the final rule stage in response to APTA’s comment because APTA did not provide sufficient support for its claim that window frames would require retrofitting or redesigning as a result of this rule. Additionally, with regard to concerns about legal liability that APTA raised in its comment, FRA notes that a manufacturer may comply with the glazing test by using either the cinder block or steel ball. Consistent with the findings of the 
IRFA, and a determination that the 
economic impact of the rule will not be significant, the FRA Administrator hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 
C. Paperwork Reduction Act 
FRA submitted the information 
collection requirements in this rule to 
OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
34Please note 
that any revised requirements, as specified in this rule, are marked by asterisks (*) in the table below. The sections that contain the new and former information collection requirements under OMB Control No. 2130–0525 and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows: 
CFR section Respondent 
universe Total annual 
responses Average time 
per response Total annual 
burden hours Total cost 
equivalent 
(A) (B) (C) = A * B (D) = C * 
wage rate35 
223.3—Application—Locomotives, pas-
senger cars, and cabooses built after 
1945 used only for excursion, edu-cational, recreational, or private trans-portation purposes.733 railroads ......... 400 marked tools 
(small hammers with instructions).30 minutes ............ 200.00 hours ......... $11,978.00 
223.11(c)—Requirements for loco-
motives built or rebuilt prior to July 1, 1980, equipped with certified glazing in all locomotive cab windows (*Note: Revised requirement.*).The rule will eliminate the need for railroads to submit waiver petitions (and repeated extensions of 
those waivers every 5 years) from part 223 for certain older railroad equipment and eliminate the Federal Government’s need to review and approve the waiver petitions and extension requests. 
—(d)(1) Locomotive placed in des-
ignated service due to a damaged or broken cab window—Stenciled ‘‘Des-ignated Service—DO NOT OCCUPY’’.733 railroads ......... 15 stencilings ........ 3 minutes .............. .75 hour ................. $44.92 
—(d)(2) Locomotives removed from 
service until broken or damaged win-dows are replaced with certified glaz-ing.Glazing certification for locomotive replacement windows is done at the time of manufacturing. Con-
sequently, there is no additional burden associated with this requirement. 
223.13(c)—Requirements for cabooses 
built or rebuilt prior to July 1, 1980, equipped with certified glazing in all windows (*Note: Revised require-ment.*).The rule will eliminate the need for railroads to submit waiver petitions (and repeated extensions of 
those waivers every 5 years) from part 223 for certain older railroad equipment and eliminate the Federal Government’s need to review and approve the waiver petitions and extension requests. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES168923 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
3664 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). CFR section Respondent 
universe Total annual 
responses Average time 
per response Total annual 
burden hours Total cost 
equivalent 
(A) (B) (C) = A * B (D) = C * 
wage rate35 
—(d) Cabooses removed from service 
until broken or damaged windows are 
replaced with certified glazing.Glazing certification for caboose replacement windows is done at the time of manufacturing. Con-
sequently, there is no additional burden associated with this requirement. 
223.15(c)—Requirements for passenger 
cars built or rebuilt prior to July 1, 1980, equipped with certified glazing in all windows plus four emergency windows (*Note: Revised require-ment. Those passenger cars oper-ating at Class 3 speeds (or higher) will need still need to submit a waiv-er; for those operating below Class 3 speeds, the rule will eliminate the need for the passenger railroads to submit waiver petitions.*).733 railroads ......... 1 renewal waiver ... 4 hours .................. 4.00 hours ............. $309.76 
—(d) Passenger cars removed from 
service until broken/damaged win-dows are replaced with certified glaz-ing.Glazing certification for passenger car replacement windows is done at the time of manufacturing. 
Consequently, there is no additional burden associated with this requirement. 
Appendix A—(b)(16)—Certification of 
Glazing Materials—Manufacturers to certify in writing that glazing material meets the requirements of this sec-tion.3 manufacturers .... 10 certifications ..... 30 minutes ............ 5.00 hours ............. $387.20 
—(c) Identification and marking of each 
unit of glazing material.3 manufacturers .... 25,000 marked 
pieces.480 pieces per 
hour.52.08 hours ........... $3,119.07 
Total ................................................ 733 railroads + 3 
manufacturers.25,426 responses N/A ........................ 262 hours .............. $15,839 
All estimates include the time for 
reviewing instructions; searching 
existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed data; and reviewing the information. For information or a copy of the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. Hodan Wells, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at 202–868–9412, or at Hodan.Wells@dot.gov. 
OMB is required to make a decision 
concerning the collection of information requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. 
FRA is not authorized to impose a 
penalty on persons for violating information collection requirements that do not display a current OMB control number, if required. The current OMB control number is 2130–0525. 
D. Federalism Implications 
Executive Order 13132, Federalism,
36 
requires FRA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials 
in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 
effects 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.’’ Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments or the agency consults with State and local government officials early in the process of developing the regulation. Where a regulation has federalism implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to consult with State and local officials in the process of developing the regulation. 
FRA has analyzed this rule in 
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has determined that this rule has no federalism implications, other than the possible preemption of State laws under 49 U.S.C. 20106. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply, and preparation of a federalism summary impact statement for this final rule is not required. 
E. International Trade Impact 
Assessment 
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 
prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This rule is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States. 
F. Environmental Impact 
FRA has evaluated this rule consistent 
with the National Environmental Policy 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES168924 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
3740 CFR 1508.4. 
3823 CFR 771.116(b). 
39See 54 U.S.C. 306108. 
40See Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 
as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 
303. 41Public Law 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531. 4266 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 
Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500–1508, and FRA’s NEPA implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 771 and determined that it is categorically excluded from environmental review and therefore does not require the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions identified in an agency’s NEPA implementing regulations that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an EA or EIS.
37 
Specifically, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15), ‘‘[p]romulgation of rules, the issuance of policy statements, the waiver or modification of existing regulatory requirements, or discretionary approvals that do not result in significantly increased emissions of air or water pollutants or noise.’’ 
The main purpose of this rule is to 
revise FRA’s Safety Glazing Standards to maintain and in some cases enhance safety, while reducing unnecessary costs and providing regulatory flexibility. This rule will not directly or indirectly impact any environmental resources and will not result in significantly increased emissions of air or water pollutants or noise. In analyzing the applicability of a CE, FRA must also consider whether unusual circumstances are present that would warrant a more detailed environmental review.
38FRA has concluded that no 
such unusual circumstances exist with respect to this rule, and it meets the requirements for categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). 
Pursuant to Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking has no potential to affect historic properties.
39 
FRA has also determined that this rule does not approve a project resulting in a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f).
40 
G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) 
Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,’’ and DOT Order 5610.2C require DOT agencies to 
achieve environmental justice as part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The DOT Order instructs DOT agencies to address compliance with Executive Order 12898 and requirements within the DOT Order in rulemaking activities, as appropriate, and also requires consideration of the benefits of transportation programs, policies, and other activities where minority populations and low-income populations benefit, at a minimum, to the same level as the general population as a whole when determining impacts on minority and low-income populations. FRA has evaluated this rule under Executive Order 12898 and the DOT Order and has determined it will not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority populations or low-income populations. 
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 
Under section 201 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
41each 
Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ‘‘before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written statement’’ detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more (as adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required. I. Energy Impact 
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 
Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant energy action.’’
42FRA evaluated this 
rule under Executive Order 13211 and determined that this regulatory action is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within the meaning of Executive Order 13211. 
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 223 
Glazing standards, Penalties, Railroad 
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements. 
The Final Rule 
For the reasons discussed in the 
preamble, FRA is amending part 223 of 
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 
PART 223—SAFETY GLAZING 
STANDARDS—LOCOMOTIVES, PASSENGER CARS AND CABOOSES 
■1. The authority citation for part 223 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20133, 
20701–20702, 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 
2461 note; and 49 CFR 1.89. 
■2. Amend § 223.3 by: 
■a. Removing the semicolon at the end 
of paragraph (b)(1) and adding a period 
in its place; and 
■b. Adding paragraph (b)(5). 
The addition reads as follows: 
§ 223.3 Application. 
* * * * * 
(b) * * * 
(5) Locomotives, cabooses, and 
passenger cars built or rebuilt prior to 
July 1, 1980, that are operated at speeds not exceeding 30 mph, and used only where the risk of propelled or fouling objects striking the equipment is low. Risk is presumed low, unless the railroad operating the equipment has knowledge, or FRA makes a showing, that specific risk factors exist. Risk factors include reported incidents of propelled or fouling objects striking rail equipment, or infrastructure conditions or other operating environment conditions that have led or are likely to lead to objects striking rail equipment in operation. 
* * * * * 
■3. Amend § 223.9 by revising the 
section heading to read as follows: 
§ 223.9 Requirements for equipment built 
or rebuilt after June 30, 1980. 
* * * * * 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES168925 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 
■4. Amend § 223.11 by revising the 
section heading to read as follows: 
§ 223.11 Requirements for locomotives 
built or rebuilt prior to July 1, 1980. 
* * * * * 
■5. Amend § 223.13 by revising the 
section heading to read as follows: 
§ 223.13 Requirements for cabooses built or rebuilt prior to July 1, 1980. 
* * * * * 
■6. Amend § 223.15 by revising the 
section heading to read as follows: 
§ 223.15 Requirements for passenger cars built or rebuilt prior to July 1, 1980. 
* * * * * 
■7. Amend appendix A to part 223 by 
revising paragraphs b.(6), (10), (11), (13), 
and (15) to read as follows: 
Appendix A to Part 223—Certification 
of Glazing Materials 
* * * * * 
b. * * *
(6) The Witness Plate shall be an unbacked 
sheet of maximum 0.006-inch, alloy 1100 temper O, aluminum stretched within the perimeter of a suitable frame to provide a taut surface. If a steel ball is used for Large Object Impact testing, the Witness Plate shall be an unbacked sheet of maximum 0.002-inch, alloy 1145 temper H19 or equivalent, aluminum stretched within the perimeter of a suitable frame to provide a taut surface. 
* * * * * 
(10) The Test Specimen for glazing 
material that is intended for use in end facing glazing locations shall be subjected to a Type I test regimen consisting of the following tests: 
(i) Ballistic Impact: A standard 22 caliber 
long rifle lead bullet of 40 grains in weight impacts at a minimum velocity of 960 feet per second. 
(ii) Large Object Impact: (A) A cinder block weighing a minimum of 
24 lbs with dimensions of 8 inches by 8 inches by 16 inches nominally impacts the glazing surface at the corner of the block at a minimum velocity of 44 feet per second. The cinder block must be of composition making it structurally sound, such as referenced in ASTM, International (ASTM) Specification C33 or ASTM C90; or 
(B) A steel ball (e.g., ball bearing or shot 
put) weighing a minimum of 12 lbs impacts the glazing surface at a minimum velocity of 62.5 feet per second. 
(11) The Test Specimen for glazing 
material that is intended for use only in sidefacing glazing locations shall be subjected to a Type II test regimen consisting of the following tests: 
(i) Ballistic Impact: A standard 22 caliber 
long rifle lead bullet of 40 grains in weight impacts at a minimum velocity of 960 feet per second. 
(ii) Large Object Impact: (A) A cinder block weighting a minimum 
of 24 lbs with dimensions of 8 inches by 8 inches by 16 inches nominally impacts the 
glazing surface at the corner of the block at a minimum velocity of 12 feet per second. The cinder block must be of composition making it structurally sound, such as referenced in ASTM C33–18 or ASTM C90; or 
(B) A solid steel ball (e.g., ball bearing or 
shot put) weighing a minimum of 12 lbs impacts the glazing surface at a minimum velocity of 17 feet per second. 
* * * * * 
(13) Except as provided in paragraphs 
b.(10)(ii)(B) and b.(11)(ii)(B) of this appendix, two different test specimens must be subjected to the large object impact portion of the tests. For purposes of paragraphs b.(10)(ii)(B) and b.(11)(ii)(B), four different test specimens shall be subjected to each impact test. 
* * * * * 
(15) Except as provided in paragraphs 
b.(10)(ii)(B) and b.(11)(ii)(B) of this appendix, test specimens must consecutively pass the required number of tests at the required minimum velocities. Individual tests resulting in failures at greater than the required minimum velocities may be repeated but a failure of an individual test at less than the minimum velocity shall result in termination of the total test and failure of the material. For purposes of paragraphs b.(10)(ii)(B) and b.(11)(ii)(B), three out of four test specimens must pass the test for the glazing material to be acceptable. Individual tests resulting in a failure at velocities above the prescribed range may be repeated. 
* * * * * 
Issued in Washington, DC. 
Amitabha Bose, 
Administrator. 
[FR Doc. 2022–24469 Filed 11–16–22; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration 
50 CFR Part 648 
[Docket No. 221110–0237] 
RIN 0648–BL43 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 22 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan 
AGENCY : National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 
ACTION : Final rule. 
SUMMARY : This action implements 
approved measures for Amendment 22 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 22 was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to revise summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass commercial and recreational sector allocations. Amendment 22 is intended to ensure that the best available science is used to determine commercial and recreational sector allocations. 
DATES : Effective January 1, 2023. 
ADDRESSES : Copies of Amendment 22, 
including the Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared in support of this action are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The supporting documents are also accessible via the internet at: https://www.mafmc.org/s/SFSBSB_ com_ rec_
allocation_ EA-final_ 6-24-22.pdf. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Emily Keiley, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281–9116. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Background 
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) cooperatively manage the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) outlines the allocation of quota, for each species, between the commercial and recreational fisheries. Amendment 22 reevaluated and recommended revisions to the commercial and recreational sector allocations in the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP. Amendment 22 was initiated, in part, to address the allocation-related impacts of the revised recreational catch and landings data provided by the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). Specifically, Amendment 22 considered: 
1. Changing the allocations between 
the commercial and recreational sectors for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass; 
2. Adding an option to transfer a 
portion of the allowable landings each year between the commercial and recreational sectors, in either direction, based on the needs of each sector; and 
3. Adding the option for future 
additional changes to the commercial/ recreational allocation and transfer provisions to be considered through an FMP addendum/framework action, as opposed to an amendment. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Nov 16, 2022 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1