77136 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Notices 

1See Austin W. R.R.—Operation Exemption— 

Cap. Metro. Transp. Auth., FD 35072 (STB served 

Sept. 14, 2007). 

You must include the DS form 

number (if applicable), information 

collection title, and the OMB control 

number in any correspondence. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

• Title of Information Collection: 

Shrimp Exporter’s/Importer’s 

Declaration. 

• OMB Control Number: 1405–0095. 

• Type of Request: Revision of a 

Currently Approved Collection. 

• Originating Office: Bureau of 

Oceans and International Environmental 

and Scientific Affairs, Office of Marine 

Conservation (OES/OMC). 

• Form Number: DS–2031. 

• Respondents: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

• Estimated Number of Respondents: 

3,000. 

• Estimated Number of Responses: 

10,000. 

• Average Time per Response: 10 

minutes. 

• Total Estimated Burden Time: 1,666 

hours. 

• Frequency: On occasion. 

• Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. 

We are soliciting public comments to 

permit the Department to: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper functions of the Department. 

• Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the time and cost burden for 

this proposed collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used. 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected. 

• Minimize the reporting burden on 

those who are to respond, including the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Please note that comments submitted 

in response to this Notice are public 

record. Before including any detailed 

personal information, you should be 

aware that your comments as submitted, 

including your personal information, 

will be available for public review. 

Abstract of Proposed Collection 

The DS–2031 form is necessary to 

document imports of shrimp and 

products from shrimp pursuant to the 

State Department’s implementation of 

Section 609 of Public Law 101–162, 

which prohibits the entry into the 

United States of shrimp harvested in 

ways which are harmful to sea turtles. 

Respondents are exporters of shrimp 

and products from shrimp and 

government officials in countries that 

export shrimp and products from 

shrimp to the United States. The 

importer is required to present the DS– 

2031 form at the port of entry into the 

United States, to retain the DS–2031 

form for a period of three years 

subsequent to entry, and during that 

time to make the DS–2031 form 

available to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection or the Department of State 

upon request. 

Methodology 

The DS–2031 form is completed by 

the exporter, the importer, and under 

certain conditions a government official 

of the harvesting country. The DS–2031 

form accompanies shipments of shrimp 

and shrimp product to the United States 

and is to be made available to U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection at the 

time of entry and for three years after 

entry. 

Mahlet N. Mesfin, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans, 

Fisheries, and Polar Affairs, Department of 

State. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24688 Filed 11–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–09–P 

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE 

SJI Board of Directors Meeting, Notice 

AGENCY: State Justice Institute. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this meeting 

is to consider grant applications for the 

1st quarter of FY 2024, and other 

business. 

DATES: The SJI Board of Directors will 

be meeting on Monday, December 4, 

2023 at 1 p.m. ET. 

ADDRESSES: SJI Headquarters, 12700 

Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340, Fairfax, 

Virginia. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, 

State Justice Institute, 12700 Fair Lakes 

Circle, Suite 340, Fairfax, VA 22033, 

703–660–4979, contact@sji.gov. 

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 10702(f).) 

Jonathan D. Mattiello, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24695 Filed 11–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

[Docket No. AB 578X] 

Austin Area Terminal Railroad, Inc— 

Discontinuance of Service 

Exemption—In Bastrop, Burnet, Lee, 

Llano, Travis, and Williamson 

Counties, Texas 

On December 30, 2022, the Board, by 

decision of the Director of the Office of 

Proceedings (Director), rejected the 

verified notice of exemption filed by 

Austin Area Terminal Railroad, Inc. 

(AATR) to discontinue service over an 

approximately 162-mile line in Texas 

because the required certification 

concerning the absence of local traffic 

on the line was deficient. AATR 

appealed that decision. For the reasons 

discussed below, the Board will deny 

the appeal. Nevertheless, the Board will 

grant on its own motion an exemption 

under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior 

approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

10903 permitting AATR to discontinue 

common carrier rail service over the 

line. 

Background 

On November 30, 2022, AATR filed a 

verified notice of exemption under 49 

CFR 1152.50 to discontinue common 

carrier rail service over approximately 

162 miles of rail line owned by Capital 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 

located between milepost AUNW–MP 

0.0 (SPT–MP 57.00), west of Giddings, 

and milepost AUNW–MP 154.07 (SPT– 

MP 99.04), at Llano, including the 

Marble Falls Branch (6.43 miles), the 

Scobee Spur (3.3 miles), and the Burnet 

Spur (0.93 miles) in Bastrop, Burnet, 

Lee, Llano, Travis, and Williamson 

Counties, Tex. (the Lines). 

According to AATR, it received Board 

authority to provide common carrier 

service over the Lines in 2002, replacing 

its parent company, Trans-Global 

Solutions Inc., as operator. See Austin 

Area Terminal R.R.—Change in 

Operators Exemption—Trans-Glob. 

Sols., Inc., FD 33972 (STB served Dec. 

20, 2000); see also Trans-Glob. Sols., 

Inc.—Operation Exemption—Cap. 

Metro. Transp. Auth., FD 33860 (STB 

served Apr. 4, 2000). AATR’s verified 

notice states, however, that it has not 

operated over the Lines in many years 

and that the Lines are presently 

operated by Austin Western Railroad, 

L.L.C. (AWRR), a rail carrier unaffiliated 

with AATR. (Verified Notice 1–2.) 1

On December 30, 2022, the Director 

rejected the notice, noting that, under 49 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Notices 77137 

2AWRR and its parent company, Watco Holdings, 

Inc., filed a joint pleading on January 20, 2023, 

confirming AWRR’s role providing common carrier 

service on the Lines and noting their general 

support for AATR’s discontinuance efforts. 

3The ICC later acknowledged the findings in CSX 

Transportation in a subsequent decision by the 

entire Commission. See Buffalo & Pittsburgh R.R.— 

Discontinuance & Aban. Exemption—Between DC 

Tower & Homer City, in Jefferson & Ind. Cntys., Pa., 

AB 369 (Sub-No. 2X) et al., slip op. at 2 n.3 (ICC 

served Nov. 17, 1993) (explaining that the notice in 

CSX Transportation was ‘‘rejected because CSXT 

had failed to certify that there was no local traffic 

on the Line’’). 

4AATR notes that in Delaware & Hudson 

Railway—Discontinuance of Trackage Rights 

Exemption—in Broome County, N.Y., AB 156 (SubNo. 27X) (STB served Oct. 18, 2016), the Board 

rejected several challenges to the notice of 

exemption, ‘‘including one focused on the accuracy 

of [the carrier’s] certification.’’ (AATR Appeal 9.) 

Questions were raised in that proceeding about 

whether the discontinuing carrier had in fact 

conducted local traffic on the relevant lines in the 

last two years. See, e.g., Reply to D&H Reply to Pet. 

to Revoke at 7, May 12, 2015, Del. & Hudson, AB 

156 (Sub-No. 27X) (arguing that if any of the traffic 

that ‘‘D&H carries’’ on the trackage rights lines is 

local traffic, then the ‘‘Exemption Notice fails’’). But 

no party in Delaware & Hudson argued that carrierspecific certifications, in general, do not qualify for 

the class exemption, and the Board accepted the 

certification there—as it did in all the decisions 

cited by AATR—without discussing the issue raised 

in the Director’s order or in CSX Transportation. 

CFR 1152.50(b), ‘‘[a]n abandonment or 

discontinuance of service or trackage 

rights is exempt if the carrier certifies 

that no local traffic has moved over the 

line for at least 2 years . . . .’’ The 

Director observed that, although AATR 

certified that it had not provided service 

over the Lines for at least two years, 

AATR also noted that the Lines were 

‘‘presently operated’’ by AWRR. Austin 

Area Terminal R.R.—Discontinuance of 

Service Exemption—in Bastrop, Burnet, 

Lee, Llano, Travis, & Williamson Cntys., 

Tex., AB 578X, slip op. at 1 (STB served 

Dec. 30, 2022). Thus, because AATR 

had not certified that there had been no 

local traffic on the Lines during the 

preceding two years, the Director found 

that the verified notice did not meet the 

requirements of the two-year out-ofservice provision at 49 CFR 1152.50. 

On appeal, AATR argues, among other 

things, that granting its appeal would be 

consistent with certain agency 

precedent accepting carrier-specific, 

two-year-out-of-service certifications— 

allowing invocation of the 

discontinuance class exemption when a 

carrier has certified that it has handled 

no traffic (local or otherwise) for at least 

two years, regardless of whether the line 

in question has hosted common carrier 

operations by other railroads in the past 

two years. (AATR Appeal 6.) AATR 

further asserts that not allowing carrierspecific certifications would 

unnecessarily increase regulatory 

barriers to industry exit and, in turn, 

would discourage honest and efficient 

management of railroads, contrary to the 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. 10101(7) and 

(9).2 (AATR Appeal 10.) 

Discussion and Conclusions 

Under 49 CFR 1011.7(a)(2)(x), the 

Board has delegated to the Director the 

authority to determine whether to issue 

notices of exemption. The Board, 

however, has reserved for itself the 

consideration and disposition of all 

appeals of initial decisions issued by the 

Director. See 49 CFR 1011.2(a)(7). In 

this proceeding, AATR argues that the 

Director erred in rejecting its verified 

notice of exemption. On appeal, the 

Board considers whether the notice was 

properly rejected under the 

circumstances presented. See, e.g., Ill. 

Cent. R.R.—Aban. Exemption—in 

Champaign Cnty., Ill., AB 43 (Sub-No. 

189X), slip op. at 3 (STB served July 2, 

2015). 

The Board finds that the verified 

notice was properly rejected. First, the 

Director’s application of 49 CFR 

1152.50(b) is consistent with the literal 

language of the regulation, which states 

that ‘‘[a]n abandonment or 

discontinuance of service or trackage 

rights is exempt if the carrier certifies 

that no local traffic has moved over the 

line for at least 2 years . . . .’’ 

(emphasis added). Indeed, the final rule 

adopting the discontinuance class 

exemption noted that the meaning of 

‘‘out of service’’ for the purpose of that 

exemption is the same as in the 

rulemaking establishing the class 

exemption for abandonments. 

Exemption of Out of Serv. Rail Lines 

(Discontinuance of Serv. & Trackage 

Rts.), 1 I.C.C.2d 55, 56 (1984). The 

abandonment rulemaking defined ‘‘out 

of service’’ rail lines as those lines 

where there had been ‘‘no traffic 

originating or terminating on the line for 

at least 2 years.’’ Exemption of Out of 

Serv. Rail Lines, 366 I.C.C. 885, 887 

(1983) (emphasis added). Further, the 

final rule adopting the discontinuance 

class exemption noted that such 

discontinuances were limited in scope, 

having ‘‘little or no competitive or 

operational impact,’’ because they 

‘‘w[ould] usually pertain to short-line 

segments with no shippers,’’ and that 

regulation was ‘‘not needed to protect 

shippers from the abuse of market 

power, because the lines would not have 

been used by shippers for at least 2 

years.’’ Exemption of Out of Serv. Rail 

Lines (Discontinuance of Serv. & 

Trackage Rights), 1 I.C.C.2d at 57 

(emphasis added). 

The Director’s ruling was also 

consistent with the discussion in CSX 

Transportation in Jefferson & Indiana 

Counties, Pa., AB 55 (Sub-No. 453X) 

(ICC served Nov. 27, 1992), cited by the 

Director in the challenged order. There, 

the agency explained that the ‘‘test 

[under the regulation] is not whether 

[the discontinuing carrier] has provided 

any local service over the line in the 

past 2 years but whether there has been 

any local service on the line during that 

period.’’ CSX Transp., AB 55 (Sub-No. 

453X), slip op. at 2.3 Although AATR 

characterizes CSX Transportation as 

‘‘obscure,’’ (AATR Appeal 6), in none of 

the cases AATR cites did the agency 

squarely address the issue here: whether 

the regulation requires the 

discontinuing carrier to certify that no 

local traffic at all—as opposed to just its 

own—has moved over the line for at 

least two years. Nor did any party in the 

decisions cited by AATR challenge the 

adequacy of a carrier-specific 

certification versus one covering all 

local traffic on the line.4

The Board acknowledges that carrierspecific certifications in two-year-outof-service discontinuance proceedings 

have been more recently accepted 

without challenge or controversy. See, 

e.g., Minn. Com. Ry.—Discontinuance of 

Trackage Rts. Exemption—in Anoka, 

Hennepin, Ramsey, & Wash. Cntys., 

Minn., AB 882 (Sub-No. 4X) (STB 

served May 20, 2020); Wheeling & Lake 

Erie Ry.—Discontinuance of Serv. 

Exemption—in Erie Cnty., Ohio, AB 227 

(Sub-No. 13X) (STB served Mar. 22, 

2019); All. Terminal R.R.— 

Discontinuance of Serv. & 

Discontinuance of Trackage Rts. 

Exemption—in Denton & Tarrant 

Cntys., Tex., AB 1262X (STB served 

Apr. 23, 2018). Moreover, as the Board 

has explained previously, 

discontinuance of trackage rights that 

have not been operated for at least two 

years is unlikely to negatively impact 

shippers, ‘‘especially . . . because a 

discontinuance of trackage rights still 

leaves [at least the] line owner in place 

to conduct service.’’ See Norfolk S. 

Ry.—Acquis. & Operation—Certain Rail 

Lines of the Del. & Hudson Ry., FD 

35873, slip op. at 20 (STB served May 

15, 2015). 

Nevertheless, to resolve the 

inconsistency, the Board clarifies that 

the regulation should be applied as 

written and as intended at the time of 

its adoption. Carriers using the twoyear-out-of-service notice must certify 

that no local traffic has moved over the 

line for two years, not just their own 

traffic. The Board further notes that 

carriers may petition for individual 

exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 10502(a). 

While the individual exemption process 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77138 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Notices 

5 Given the Board’s finding regarding market 

power, it need not be determined whether the 

proposed discontinuance is limited in scope. 

1The Decision accurately traces the relationship 

of the discontinuance rulemaking to the 

abandonment rulemaking, and it faithfully quotes 

multiple statements in the discontinuance 

rulemaking preamble that treat phrases such as ‘‘out 

of service’’ and ‘‘no local traffic’’ as applying to all 

carriers on the line, not just the filing carrier. 

Decision 3. Yet I am troubled that the Federal 

Register notices accompanying the proposed and 

final rules in the discontinuance proceeding state 

the exemption can apply when ‘‘no traffic has been 

handled locally on the line by the carrier seeking 

the discontinuance for at least 2 years.’’ Exemption 

of Out of Service Lines (Discontinuance of Service 

and Trackage Rights), 48 FR 27584 (June 16, 1983) 

(emphasis added). Ultimately, I find Federal 

Register notices contain a drafting error because the 

phrase ‘‘by the carrier seeking the discontinuance’’ 

is less streamlined than the class 

exemption procedures, it still provides 

an avenue for obtaining ‘‘expedite[d] 

decisions’’ with ‘‘minimize[d] 

regulatory burdens’’ in uncontested or 

noncontroversial proceedings involving 

rail line abandonments and 

discontinuances. See, e.g., Minn. N. 

R.R.—Aban. Exemption—Between 

Redland Junction & Fertile, in Polk 

Cnty., Minn., AB 497 (Sub-No. 2X), slip 

op. at 11 n.17 (STB served Nov. 14, 

1997) (‘‘Detailed revenue and cost 

analysis is generally reserved for the 

application process . . . .’’) Indeed, the 

Board has readily granted petitions for 

exemption to discontinue unused 

trackage rights in appropriate 

circumstances where there would be no 

impact on service. See, e.g., Idaho N. & 

Pac. R.R.—Discontinuance of Trackage 

Rts. Exemption—in Canyon, Payette, & 

Wash. Cntys., AB 433 (Sub-No. 4X) (STB 

served Jan. 3, 2013) (granting 

discontinuance authority for one set of 

overhead trackage rights that had not 

been used for 17 years, and another that 

had not been used for three years); 

BNSF Ry.—Discontinuance of Trackage 

Rts.—in Peoria & Tazewell Cntys., Ill., 

AB 6 (Sub-No. 470X) (STB served June 

4, 2010) (granting discontinuance 

authority for overhead trackage rights 

that had not been used in 28 years). 

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, 

AATR’s appeal of the Director’s 

decision rejecting the notice of 

exemption will be denied. However, as 

discussed below, the Board will grant 

on its own motion the discontinuance of 

rail service by AATR over the lines at 

issue. 

The Sua Sponte Exemption 

In rejecting a verified notice of 

exemption, the Board often requires or 

suggests that a party file an application 

or petition for exemption to obtain the 

necessary authority it seeks. Under the 

circumstances here, however, and given 

the sufficiency of the current record, the 

Board will minimize the burden on 

AATR by granting an exemption for 

discontinuance authority over the Lines 

sua sponte. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 10903, a rail carrier 

may not discontinue operations without 

the Board’s prior approval. Pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 10502(a), however, the Board 

shall, to the maximum extent possible, 

exempt a transaction or service from 

regulation upon finding that (1) 

regulation is not necessary to carry out 

the rail transportation policy (RTP) of 49 

U.S.C. 10101, and (2) either (a) the 

transaction or service is of limited 

scope, or (b) regulation is not needed to 

protect shippers from the abuse of 

market power. 

Here, detailed scrutiny under 49 

U.S.C. 10903 of discontinuance by 

AATR is not necessary to carry out the 

rail transportation policy. By 

minimizing the administrative expense 

of the application or petition process, an 

exemption would reduce regulatory 

barriers to exit. See 49 U.S.C. 10101(2), 

(7), (15). An exemption would also 

encourage efficient management by 

relieving AATR of the responsibility of 

operating over rail lines it has not used 

in more than 15 years. See 49 U.S.C. 

10101(9). Further, other aspects of the 

RTP would not be adversely affected. 

Regulation of the proposed 

discontinuance is also not needed to 

protect shippers from the abuse of 

market power.5 AATR has not operated 

over the Lines in many years, and 

shippers may request service from 

AWRR, which offers common carrier 

service over the Lines. 

Employee Protection. Under 49 U.S.C. 

10502(g), the Board may not use its 

exemption authority to relieve a carrier 

of its statutory obligation to protect the 

interests of its employees. Accordingly, 

as a condition to granting this 

exemption, the Board will impose the 

employee protective conditions set forth 

in Oregon Short Line Railroad— 

Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch 

Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham & 

Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. 

91 (1979). 

Offers of Financial Assistance, 

Interim Trail Use/Rail Banking, Public 

Use, and Environmental Review. 

Typically, in individual exemption 

proceedings, formal expressions of 

intent to file an offer of financial 

assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued 

rail service are due within 10 days of 

the Federal Register publication giving 

notice of the petition for exemption. See 

49 CFR 1152.27(c)(1)(i). These filings 

must indicate the intent to file an OFA 

for subsidy and demonstrate that the 

filers are preliminarily financially 

responsible. See 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)(i). 

In this case, given the Board’s sua 

sponte grant of an exemption, formal 

expressions of intent must be filed by 

November 13, 2023. 

Provided no formal expression of 

intent to file an OFA to subsidize 

continued rail service has been 

received, this exemption will be 

effective on December 3, 2023, unless 

stayed pending reconsideration. And, 

because this is a discontinuance and not 

an abandonment, the Board need not 

consider OFAs to acquire the Lines, 

interim trail use/rail banking requests 

under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d), or requests to 

negotiate for public use of the Lines 

under 49 U.S.C. 10905. Lastly, because 

there will be an environmental review if 

abandonment is sought in the future, 

environmental review is unnecessary 

here. 

In sum, the Board permits the 

discontinuance of rail service by AATR 

over the above-described rail lines, and 

notice of AATR’s exemption will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

It is ordered: 

1. AATR’s appeal of the Director’s 

decision is denied. 

2. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board 

exempts from the prior approval 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 the 

discontinuance of service by AATR on 

the above-described lines, subject to the 

employee protective conditions in 

Oregon Short Line Railroad— 

Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch 

Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham & 

Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. 

91 (1979). 

3. Notice of the exemption will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

4. This exemption will be effective 

December 3, 2023. 

5. Formal expressions of intent to file 

an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to 

subsidize continued rail service are due 

November 13, 2023. 

6. Petitions to reopen and petitions to 

stay the effectiveness of the exemption 

must be filed by November 20, 2023. 

7. This decision is effective on its 

service date. 

Decided: November 2, 2023. 

By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, 

Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and 

Schultz. Board Member Fuchs 

concurred with a separate expression. 

lllllllllllllllllll

BOARD MEMBER FUCHS, concurring: 

I agree with today’s decision 

(Decision) that the Director’s 

interpretation of ‘‘no local traffic’’— 

requiring a line-specific certification—is 

consistent with the plain meaning of the 

regulation, Decision 3, and supported by 

the relevant legal history.1 I write 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Notices 77139 

does not appear in the related regulation or 

preamble. I also note that, after the agency issued 

the final rule and associated Federal Register 

notice, the D.C. Circuit—in upholding a remand 

decision that embraced both the abandonment and 

discontinuance exemption proceedings—stated that 

the ‘‘originally proposed definition of ‘out of 

service,’ which encompassed only rail lines 

carrying no traffic at all for at least two years, had 

been expanded in the final rule to include lines 

carrying overhead traffic, i.e., traffic that neither 

originates nor terminates on a line and can be 

rerouted over other lines.’’ Ill. Com. Comm’n v. ICC, 

848 F.2d 1246, 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (emphasis 

added). 

2As part of the rulemaking process, the Board 

should consider any necessary protections for when 

a carrier-specific certification would raise problems 

relevant to carrying out the RTP, particularly with 

respect to competition. But precedent shows such 

problems are far from the norm. The suggested 

future rulemaking could also address any problems 

or inconsistencies with the agency’s treatment of 

atypical cases. See e.g., Consol. R. Corp.— 

Exemption—Aban. of the Weirton Secondary Track 

in Harrison & Tuscarawas, Cntys., Ohio, AB 176 

(ICC decided June 7, 1989) (revoking a class 

exemption as applied to the proposed abandonment 

at issue and finding that a more thorough review 

of the transaction was necessary to carry out the 

national rail transportation policy). 

separately to suggest that the Board 

ought to consider changing this 

regulation. AATR’s appeal 

understandably cites an extensive list of 

cases in which the agency has allowed 

carrier-specific ‘‘no local traffic’’ 

certifications via the notice process, 

(AATR Appeal 8–9), and—in 

considering this overwhelming 

precedent—I find that the Board, to 

carry out the rail transportation policy 

(RTP) at 49 U.S.C. 10101, need not 

routinely subject carriers to the 

different, more burdensome petition 

process in similar future cases. Over 

more than 30 years, the Board has 

rightly saved taxpayers and many 

entities, including small businesses, 

substantial resources by cutting up to 90 

days out of the exemption process and 

eliminating a significant number of 

unneeded filings and decisions. See 49 

CFR part 1121 (procedures for petitions 

for exemption), 49 CFR 1152.60 (special 

rules for abandonment and 

discontinuance petitions for 

exemptions); 49 CFR 1152.50 (exempt 

abandonments and discontinuances); 

see also 49 U.S.C. 10101(2) (minimizing 

the need for regulatory control over the 

rail transportation system), section 

10101(7) (reducing regulatory barriers to 

entry and exit), section 10101(15) 

(providing for expeditious handling of 

proceedings). Though not the highest 

agency priority, the Board should 

consider, at the appropriate time, 

amending its discontinuance exemption 

regulations to allow carrier-specific 

certifications and once again achieve 

these savings.2

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24672 Filed 11–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. 2023–1340] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Requests for Comments; 

Clearance of Renewed Approval of 

Information Collection: Pilots 

Convicted of Alcohol or Drug-Related 

Motor Vehicle Offenses or Subject to 

State Motor Vehicle Administrative 

Procedure 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 

invites public comments about our 

intention to request the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval to renew an information 

collection. The Federal Register Notice 

with a 60-day comment period soliciting 

comments on the following collection of 

information was published on June 8, 

2023. The collection involves receiving 

and maintaining correspondence 

required to be sent to the FAA from 

pilots who have been involved in a 

drug- or alcohol-related motor vehicle 

action. The information to be collected 

will be used to and/or is necessary 

because the FAA must identify airmen 

with multiple drug- or alcohol-related 

motor vehicle actions and verify traffic 

conviction information in order to 

support the FAA’s Aviation Safety, 

Office of Aerospace Medicine, 

Aerospace Medical Certification 

Division, for their requirements to 

evaluate the qualifications of that 

airman to hold a medical certificate. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted by December 8, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Marks by email at: 

Christopher.Marks@faa.gov; phone: 

405–954–2789. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for FAA’s 

performance; (b) the accuracy of the 

estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information collection; and (d) 

ways that the burden could be 

minimized without reducing the quality 

of the collected information. 

OMB Control Number: 2120–0543. 

Title: Pilots Convicted of Alcohol or 

Drug-Related Motor Vehicle Offenses or 

Subject to State Motor Vehicle 

Administrative Procedure. 

Form Numbers: FAA Form 1600–85 

has been created since the 60 day FRN 

has been published. 

Type of Review: Renewal of an 

information collection. 

Background: The Federal Register 

Notice with a 60-day comment period 

soliciting comments on the following 

collection of information was published 

on June 8, 2023 (88 FR 37596). After a 

study and audit conducted from the late 

1970’s through the 1980’s by the 

Department of Transportation, Office of 

the Inspector General, (DOT/OIG), the 

DOT/OIG recommended the FAA find a 

way to track alcohol abusers and those 

dependent on the substance that may 

pose a threat to the National Airspace 

(NAS). Through a Congressional act 

issued in November of 1990, the FAA 

established a Driving Under the 

Influence (DUI) and Driving While 

Intoxicated (DWI) Investigations Branch. 

The final rule for this program is found 

in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR)—Part 61 § 61.15. 

This regulation calls for pilots 

certificated by the FAA to send 

information regarding Driving Under the 

Influence (or similar charges) of alcohol 

and/or drugs to the FAA within 60 days 

from either an administrative action 

against their driver’s license and/or 

criminal conviction. Part of the 

regulation also calls for the FAA to seek 

certificate action should an airman be 

involved in multiple, separate drug/ 

alcohol related motor vehicle incidents 

within a three-year period. Information 

sent by the airmen is used to confirm or 

refute any violations of these 

regulations, as well as by the Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) for 

medical qualification purposes. 

Collection by CAMI is covered under a 

separate OMB control number 2120– 

0034. 

An airman is required to provide a 

written report, with the following 

information: name, address, date of 

birth, airman certificate number, the 

type of violation which resulted in the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1