Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44793 

minimum of three points, and one segment 

of the flight consisting of a straight-line 

distance of at least 50 nautical miles between 

the takeoff and landing locations. 

(2) Three takeoffs and three landings to a 

full stop (with each landing involving a flight 

in the traffic pattern) at an airport with an 

operating control tower. 

(d) For a combined private pilot 

certification and instrument rating course 

involving a powered-life: Five hours of flying 

solo in a powered-lift on the appropriate 

areas of operation in paragraph (d)(4) of 

section 4 of this appendix that includes at 

least— 

(1) One solo cross-country flight of at least 

100 nautical miles with landings at a 

minimum of three points, and one segment 

of the flight consisting of a straight-line 

distance of at least 50 nautical miles between 

the takeoff and landing locations. 

(2) Three takeoffs and three landings to a 

full stop (with each landing involving a flight 

in the traffic pattern) at an airport with an 

operating control tower. 

6. Stage checks and end-of-course tests. 

(a) Each student enrolled in a private pilot 

course must satisfactorily accomplish the 

stage checks and end-of-course tests in 

accordance with the school’s approved 

training course that consists of the approved 

areas of operation listed in paragraph (d) of 

section 4 of this appendix that are 

appropriate to the aircraft category and class 

rating for which the course applies. 

(b) Each student must demonstrate 

satisfactory proficiency prior to receiving an 

endorsement to operate an aircraft in solo 

flight. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 3, 

2009. 

John M. Allen, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–20957 Filed 8–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 650 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2009–0074] 

RIN 2125–AF33 

National Bridge Inspection Standards 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) Manual for 

Condition Evaluation of Bridges, 1994, 

second edition (also referred to as ‘‘the 

Manual’’), together with the 2001 and 

2003 Interim Revisions, is incorporated 

by reference in 23 CFR part 650, subpart 

E, approved by the Federal Highway 

Administration, and recognized as a 

national standard for bridge inspections 

and load rating. The purpose of this 

notice is to update the incorporation by 

reference language to incorporate the 

most recent version of the AASHTO 

Manual, now known as The Manual for 

Bridge Evaluation, First Edition, 2008. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 30, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver 

comments to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Dockets Management 

Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, or submit 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or fax comments to 

(202) 493–2251. All comments should 

include the docket number that appears 

in the heading of this document. All 

comments received will be available for 

examination and copying at the above 

address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Those desiring notification of 

receipt of comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or may 

print the acknowledgment page that 

appears after submitting comments 

electronically. Anyone is able to 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, Page 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Thomas Everett, Office of Bridge 

Technology, (202) 366–4675; or Mr. 

Robert Black, Office of the Chief 

Counsel (202) 366–1359, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 

p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

You may submit or retrieve comments 

online through the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Electronic submission and retrieval help 

and guidelines are available under the 

help section of the Web site. It is 

available 24 hours each day, 365 days 

each year. Please follow the 

instructions. An electronic copy of this 

document may also be downloaded 

from the Office of the Federal Register’s 

home page at: http://www.archives.gov 

and the Government Printing Office’s 

Web page at: http:// 

www.access.gpo.gov/nara. 

Background 

This NPRM is being issued to provide 

an opportunity for public comment on 

the proposed revision to the 

incorporation by reference of the 

AASHTO Manual in the National Bridge 

Inspection Standards (NBIS). 

The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 

First Edition (MBE) was adopted by the 

AASHTO Highways Subcommittee on 

Bridges and Structures in 2005. The 

MBE combines The Manual for 

Condition Evaluation of Bridges, Second 

Edition, and its 2001 and 2003 Interim 

Revisions with the Guide Manual for 

Condition Evaluation and Load and 

Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) of 

Highway Bridges, First Edition, and its 

2005 Interim Revisions. Revisions based 

on approved agenda items from annual 

AASHTO Subcommittee meetings in 

2007 and 2008 are also incorporated 

into the MBE. 

The MBE, First Edition, 2008, 

supersedes The Manual for Condition 

Evaluation of Bridges, Second Edition, 

and the 2001 and 2003 Interim 

Revisions, which are currently 

incorporated by reference at 23 CFR 

650.317. The MBE offers assistance to 

bridge owners at all phases of bridge 

inspection and evaluation. The Manual 

serves as a standard and provides 

uniformity in the procedures and 

policies for determining the physical 

condition, maintenance needs, and load 

capacity of the Nation’s highway 

bridges. 

Because the information incorporated 

by reference at 23 CFR 650.317 has been 

superseded, the FHWA desires to 

update the NBIS regulation to reflect the 

latest information contained in the 

AASHTO documents. The FHWA also 

proposes to update the definition for 

‘‘AASHTO Manual’’ to reflect the 

updated document. 

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The FHWA has determined that this 

action would not be a significant 

regulatory action within the meaning of 

Executive Order 12866 or significant 

within the meaning of U.S. Department 

of Transportation regulatory policies 

and procedures. These changes are not 

anticipated to adversely affect, in any 

material way, any sector of the 

economy. The FHWA believes that the 

incorporation of the MBE within the 

NBIS regulation will greatly improve 

consistency and uniformity in the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
44794 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

application of bridge inspection and 

load rating procedures. In addition, 

these changes would not create a serious 

inconsistency with any other agency’s 

action or materially alter the budgetary 

impact of any entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs. Therefore, a full 

regulatory evaluation is not required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 

601–612), the FHWA has evaluated the 

effects of these changes on small entities 

and has determined preliminarily that 

this action would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This proposed rule would not impose 

unfunded mandates as defined by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 

1995). This action would not result in 

the expenditure by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $128.1 million 

or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 dated August 4, 1999, and the 

FHWA has determined that this action 

would not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a federalism assessment. The FHWA 

has also determined that this 

rulemaking will not preempt any State 

law or State regulation or affect the 

States’ ability to discharge traditional 

State governmental functions. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

under Executive Order 13175, dated 

November 6, 2000, and believes that it 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on one or more Indian Tribes; would not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on Indian Tribal governments; and 

would not preempt Tribal law. 

Therefore, a Tribal summary impact 

statement is not required. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a significant 

energy action under that order because 

it is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

a Statement of Energy Effects under 

Executive Order 13211 is not required. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance program Number 20.205, 

Highway Planning and Construction. 

The regulations implementing Executive 

Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to 

this program. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. The FHWA 

has determined that this action does not 

contain collection information 

requirements for purposes of the PRA. 

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, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children) 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. The FHWA certifies that this 

action would not concern an 

environmental risk to health or safety 

that may disproportionately affect 

children. 

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

The FHWA does not anticipate that 

this action would affect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The agency has analyzed this action 

for the purpose of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4347) and has determined 

that it would not have any effect on the 

quality of the environment. 

Regulation Identification Number 

A regulation identification number 

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 

action listed in the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 

Information Service Center publishes 

the Unified Agenda in April and 

October of each year. The RIN contained 

in the heading of this document can be 

used to cross reference this action with 

the Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 650 

Bridges, Grant Programs— 

transportation, Highways and roads, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued on: August 19, 2009. 

Victor M. Mendez, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

FHWA proposes to amend title 23, Code 

of Federal Regulations part 650 as 

follows: 

PART 650—BRIDGES, STRUCTURES, 

AND HYDRAULICS 

Subpart C—National Bridge Inspection 

Standards 

1. The authority citation for part 650 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109(a) and (h), 144, 

151, 315, and 319; 33 U.S.C. 401, 491 et seq.; 

511 et seq.; sec. 4(b) of Pub. L. 97–134, 95 

Stat. 1699 (1981); sec. 161 of Pub. L. 97–424, 

96 Stat. 2097, at 3135 (1983); sec. 1311 of 

Pub. L. 105–178, as added by Pub. L. 105– 

206, 112 Stat. 842 (1998); 23 CFR 1.32; 49 

CFR 1.48(b); E.O. 11988 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp., 

p. 117); Department of Transportation Order 

5650.2, dated April 23, 1979 (44 FR 24678). 

2. Amend § 650.305 by revising the 

definition of ‘‘American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) Manual’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 650.305 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) Manual. ‘‘The Manual for 

Bridge Evaluation,’’ First Edition, 2008, 

published by the American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 650.317). 

* * * * * 

3. Revise § 650.317(b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 650.317 Reference manuals. 

* * * * * 

(b) The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 

First Edition, 2008, AASHTO, 

incorporated by reference approved for 

§§ 650.305 and 650.313, is available for 

purchase from the American 

Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Suite 249, 444 

N. Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44795 

1Comments are available for review at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Reference Docket Number: 

DOL–2008–0002. 

2 ‘‘Ex.’’ Refers to exhibits included in the 

rulemaking docket, which can be referenced using 

the URL provided in Footnote 1, supra. 

20001. The materials may also be 

ordered via the AASHTO bookstore 

located at the following URL: http:// 

www.aashto.org/aashto/home.nsf/ 

FrontPage. 

[FR Doc. E9–20713 Filed 8–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

29 CFR Part 2 

RIN 1290–AA23 

Requirements for DOL Agencies’ 

Assessment of Occupational Health 

Risks 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary; Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Policy. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(‘‘Department’’ or ‘‘DOL’’) is 

withdrawing its proposed rule 

governing DOL agencies’ assessment of 

occupational health risks. The proposed 

rule sought to compile Department 

procedures related to risk assessment 

into a single regulation and included 

new requirements aimed at establishing 

consistent procedures intended to 

promote greater public input and 

awareness of the Department’s health 

rulemakings. 

DATES: This withdrawal is effective on 

August 31, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen Franks, Office of Regulatory 

and Programmatic Policy, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. 

Department of Labor, (202) 693–5959. 

This is not a toll-free number. 

Individuals with hearing or speech 

impairments may access the number 

above via TTY by calling the toll-free 

Federal Information Relay Service at 

1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 29, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register (73 

FR 50909 Aug. 29, 2008) a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to codify 

DOL’s internal risk assessment 

procedures for health standard 

rulemakings that address workplace 

exposure to toxic substances and 

hazardous chemicals. The NPRM stated 

that it summarized and would codify 

DOL agencies’ existing risk assessment 

paradigm and requested public 

comment on two specific procedural 

requirements: A new requirement that 

DOL agencies issue an Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) as a 

first step whenever developing a health 

standard that would regulate workplace 

exposure to toxic substances or 

hazardous chemicals; and a requirement 

that DOL agencies electronically post all 

documents relied upon to develop such 

health standards within fourteen days of 

each regulatory step. Because the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) and the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA) are the only two agencies 

within the Department that issue health 

standards related to toxic substances 

and hazardous chemicals, it was 

anticipated that the proposed rule 

would affect only those agencies. 

The Department accepted public 

comment on the NPRM for a period of 

30 days. While some interested parties, 

including members of Congress, urged 

DOL to extend the public comment 

period and requested that the 

Department hold public hearings on the 

proposal, the Department declined these 

requests due to its desire to adhere to 

the originally published timeframe for 

completion of this rulemaking. 

The Department received comments 

in response to the NPRM from a variety 

of sources, including members of 

Congress, private citizens, labor unions, 

worker advocacy organizations, industry 

associations, employer groups, and risk 

assessment experts. The majority of the 

commenters were opposed to the 

rulemaking.1

II. Reasons for Withdrawal of Proposed 

Rule 

After careful review of the comments 

and upon reconsideration of the issues 

involved in this rulemaking, the 

Department has decided to withdraw 

the proposed rule. As described below, 

the two proposed requirements are 

unnecessary. Moreover, given the nature 

of the issues, the Department believes 

that it is more useful to continue 

describing its internal risk assessment 

policies through guidance rather than 

through promulgation of a regulation. 

Proposed ANPRM Requirement. The 

proposal would have required DOL 

agencies to issue an ANPRM in every 

rulemaking for a health standard 

involving toxic substances or hazardous 

chemicals, apart from emergency 

temporary standards. Many commenters 

were opposed to this new requirement. 

See, e.g., Exs. 7.1; 16.1; 42.1; and 48.1.2

Some commenters, including members 

of Congress and Senators, employer 

groups, and worker advocacy 

organizations claimed that an ANPRM is 

not always useful and that imposing an 

ANPRM requirement in a health 

standard rulemaking when it was not 

necessary would unduly delay the 

rulemaking. See, e.g., Exs. 32.1; 37.1; 

and 42.1. They argued that this in turn 

could harm workers by unnecessarily 

delaying the introduction of the health 

protections required by the standard. 

Labor unions and worker advocacy 

organizations also claimed that 

requiring an unnecessary ANPRM 

would divert agency resources from 

other rulemaking efforts. See, e.g., Exs. 

45.1 and 48.1. 

The current policy of both OSHA and 

MSHA is to publish an ANPRM only if 

the agency believes it will be beneficial 

to the rulemaking. This decision is 

made on a case-by-case basis. In light of 

the comments to the proposal and after 

reconsideration of the proposed ANPRM 

requirement, the Department has 

determined that OSHA and MSHA 

should continue to follow their current 

ANPRM policy. 

The Department believes that an 

ANPRM can be a valuable part of the 

rulemaking process in the right 

circumstances, but that an inflexible 

requirement would not fit the varied 

circumstances in which rulemakings are 

conducted and could cause unnecessary 

delays. When an agency lacks important 

information needed to develop an 

effective proposed rule, an ANPRM 

provides one means of attempting to 

obtain that information. However, there 

are times when an agency has sufficient 

information to issue a successful 

proposed rule without taking that step. 

Avoiding an ANPRM in these situations 

allows the agency to more effectively 

use its rulemaking resources. There are 

also many other ways in which OSHA 

and MSHA can obtain needed 

information without using an ANPRM, 

such as holding stakeholder meetings, 

conducting surveys, consulting advisory 

committees, doing site visits, issuing 

Requests for Information, conducting 

peer reviews, and, in the case of OSHA, 

obtaining small entity (including small 

business) input through procedures 

required by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 

U.S.C. 609(b)). By allowing the agency 

to decide whether or not to use an 

ANPRM for a rulemaking, the agency 

retains flexibility to choose the 

information gathering methods that it 

has determined will best fit each 

individual situation. 

Proposed Electronic Posting 

Requirement. The proposal would have 

required the Department to make 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS