Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 70267 

modification petition for every change 

to the components or design of an 

antitheft device. The significance of 

many such changes could be de 

minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests 

that if the manufacturer contemplates 

making any changes, the effects of 

which might be characterized as de 

minimis, it should consult the agency 

before preparing and submitting a 

petition to modify. 

Under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95 

R. Ryan Posten, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27887 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Final Decision on Proposed 

Airport Access Restriction 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The FAA has completed its 

review of the application for an airport 

noise and access restriction submitted 

by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) 

for the Los Angeles International 

Airport (LAX). The FAA determined 

that the application does not provide 

substantial evidence that the proposed 

restriction meets three of the six 

statutory conditions for approval under 

the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 

1990 (ANCA). The FAA’s decision was 

signed on November 7, 2014, and 

transmitted to LAWA on November 8, 

2014. 

DATES: Effective date: November 25, 

2014. The effective date of the FAA’s 

decision on the application for a 

mandatory noise and access restriction 

at LAX is November 7, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Byers, Airport Planning and 

Environmental Division, APP–400, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591. Email address: 

jim.byers@faa.gov; telephone: 202–267– 

3007. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

Notice also announces the availability of 

the FAA’s final agency order 

disapproving the proposed access 

restriction at http://faa.gov/airports/

environmental/airport_noise/part_161/. 

The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 

1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the 

Act’’ or ‘‘ANCA’’) provides notice, 

review, and approval requirements for 

airports seeking to impose noise or 

access restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft 

operations that become effective after 

October 1, 1990. 49 U.S.C. 47521 et seq. 

ANCA established a 180-day review 

period for the application. Under 14 

CFR 161.313(c)(4)(ii), the review period 

starts on the date of receipt of the 

complete application, which was May 

22, 2014. 

On January 30, 2013, the FAA 

received an application from LAWA 

under Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, 14 CFR part 161, seeking 

the FAA’s review of a proposed Stage 3 

aircraft noise and access restriction at 

LAX. The FAA reviewed the application 

in accordance with 14 CFR 161.313(a), 

and determined it to be incomplete in 

the areas of Noise Exposure Maps 

(NEMs); Noise Study Area; Technical 

Data Supporting Noise Impact Analysis; 

and Cost Benefit Analysis. The FAA 

sent notice of this decision to LAWA on 

March 1, 2013. On March 15, 2013, the 

FAA provided LAWA with additional 

information regarding the types of 

information and analysis required to 

complete the application. 

On March 28, 2013, LAWA stated its 

intent to revise the Part 161 application 

and resubmit it for further review. On 

July 5, 2013, FAA received a 

‘‘Supplemental Analysis’’ from LAWA. 

The FAA reviewed the Supplemental 

Analysis and determined that the 

application continued to be incomplete 

in the areas of Airport Noise Study Area 

and Noise Contours; Technical Data 

Supporting Noise Impact Analysis; and 

Cost Benefit Analysis. The FAA sent 

notice of this decision to LAWA on 

August 2, 2013. On August 20, 2013, 

LAWA stated its intent to supplement 

the Part 161 application and resubmit it 

to the FAA. On May 12, 2014, FAA 

received LAWA’s supplemented 

application, followed by an errata sheet 

on May 22, 2014. On June 10, 2014, 

FAA determined LAWA’s application to 

be complete. On June 27, 2014, the FAA 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing its determination 

that LAWA’s application was complete 

and inviting public comments. 79 FR 

36577. The FAA received 21 separate 

comments, which the FAA considered 

during its evaluation of the LAWA 

application. 

By law, the FAA may only approve a 

noise or access restriction affecting the 

operations of Stage 3 aircraft if the 

applicant demonstrates, by substantial 

evidence, that each of six statutory 

conditions have been met. These six 

statutory conditions of approval are: 

• Condition 1: The restriction is 

reasonable, nonarbitrary, and 

nondiscriminatory; 

• Condition 2: The restriction does 

not create an undue burden on interstate 

or foreign commerce; 

• Condition 3: The proposed 

restriction maintains safe and efficient 

use of the navigable airspace; 

• Condition 4: The proposed 

restriction does not conflict with any 

existing Federal statute or regulation; 

• Condition 5: The applicant has 

provided adequate opportunity for 

public comment on the proposed 

restriction; and 

• Condition 6: The proposed 

restriction does not create an undue 

burden on the national aviation system. 

The FAA evaluated LAWA’s 

application under the provisions of 

ANCA and 14 CFR 161.317 and 

determined that the application satisfies 

the requirements under Condition 3, 

Condition 5, and Condition 6. However, 

the application does not satisfy the 

requirements under Condition 1, 

Condition 2, or Condition 4. Therefore, 

in accordance with the requirements set 

forth in ANCA, the FAA disapproved 

the application on November 7, 2014. 

Questions may be directed to the 

individual named above under the 

heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

17, 2014. 

Elliott Black, 

Director, Office of Airport Planning and 

Programming. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27815 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Random Drug and Alcohol Testing 

Percentage Rates of Covered Aviation 

Employees for the Period of January 1, 

2015, Through December 31, 2015 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The FAA has determined that 

the minimum random drug and alcohol 

testing percentage rates for the period 

January 1, 2015, through December 31, 

2015, will remain at 25 percent of 

safety-sensitive employees for random 

drug testing and 10 percent of safetysensitive employees for random alcohol 

testing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Vicky Dunne, Office of Aerospace 

Medicine, Drug Abatement Division, 

Program Policy Branch (AAM–820), 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., Room 806, 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
70268 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 

Washington, DC 20591; Telephone (202) 

267–8442. 

Discussion: Pursuant to 14 CFR 

120.109(b), the FAA Administrator’s 

decision on whether to change the 

minimum annual random drug testing 

rate is based on the reported random 

drug test positive rate for the entire 

aviation industry. If the reported 

random drug test positive rate is less 

than 1.00%, the Administrator may 

continue the minimum random drug 

testing rate at 25%. In 2013, the random 

drug test positive rate was 0.485%. 

Therefore, the minimum random drug 

testing rate will remain at 25% for 

calendar year 2015. 

Similarly, 14 CFR 120.217(c), requires 

the decision on the minimum annual 

random alcohol testing rate to be based 

on the random alcohol test violation 

rate. If the violation rate remains less 

than 0.50%, the Administrator may 

continue the minimum random alcohol 

testing rate at 10%. In 2013, the random 

alcohol test violation rate was 0.091%. 

Therefore, the minimum random 

alcohol testing rate will remain at 10% 

for calendar year 2015. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you 

have questions about how the annual 

random testing percentage rates are 

determined please refer to the Code of 

Federal Regulations Title 14, section 

120.109(b) (for drug testing), and 

120.217(c) (for alcohol testing). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

13, 2014. 

James R. Fraser, 

Federal Air Surgeon. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27829 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Safety Advisory 2014–02] 

Roadway Worker Authority Limits— 

Importance of Clear Communication, 

Compliance With Applicable Rules and 

Procedures, and Ensuring That 

Appropriate Safety Redundancies Are 

in Place in the Event of 

Miscommunication or Error 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Safety Advisory. 

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing Safety 

Advisory 2014–02 to reemphasize the 

importance of clear communication and 

compliance with applicable rules and 

procedures regarding roadway worker 

authority limits on controlled track. 

FRA believes it is necessary to issue this 

advisory in light of the 

miscommunication or error involved in 

recent roadway worker incidents that 

occurred at locations that were either 

outside of authority limits or within 

authority limits that were no longer 

protected due to dispatcher error. This 

safety advisory recommends that 

railroads monitor their employees for 

compliance with existing applicable 

rules and procedures and that they also 

examine their train dispatching systems, 

rules, and procedures to ensure that 

appropriate safety redundancies are in 

place in the event of miscommunication 

or error. In addition, this safety advisory 

recommends that if a railroad 

determines that appropriate safety 

redundancies are not in place, the 

railroad should adopt electronic 

technology that would provide 

appropriate safety redundancies, and 

adopt certain interim safety measures 

and procedures at least until such 

technology is in place. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Rusk, Staff Director, Track 

Division, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 

493–6236; or Anna Nassif Winkle, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 

493–6166. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

FRA is concerned about the 

infrequent, but repetitive incidents 

involving roadway workers being struck 

or nearly struck by trains that appear to 

be due to miscommunication or error 

regarding the roadway workers’ 

authority limits or location in relation to 

the authority limits. This safety advisory 

discusses six such incidents, three of 

which resulted in four employee 

fatalities. However, there have been 

other close-call incidents involving 

similar circumstances that did not result 

in fatalities but further highlight the 

need for this safety advisory. 

Information regarding some of the 

incidents discussed below is based on 

FRA’s preliminary findings and the 

respective railroad’s reporting to date. 

The probable causes and contributing 

factors, if any, have not yet been 

established for all of these incidents and 

nothing in this safety advisory is 

intended to attribute a cause to these 

incidents, or place responsibility for 

these incidents on the acts or omissions 

of any person or entity. 

The following is a summary of the 

circumstances involved in each of the 

incidents: 

In November 2013, a BNSF Railway 

Co. (BNSF) lead welder was killed when 

his welding truck collided with an 

eastbound freight train on a single main 

track at a location that was outside of 

his roadway work group’s limits of 

authority. It appears from FRA’s 

preliminary investigation that the twoman work group set on the track at a 

location outside of their authority limits 

after the workers disagreed regarding 

the extent of the authority limits and 

after not being able to quickly resolve 

the discrepancy because the screen 

displaying their authority was not 

visible at the time they set on the track. 

The foreman was apparently attempting 

to ‘‘wake up’’ the computer screen as 

the operator was setting their vehicle on 

and operating over the track, rather than 

remaining clear of the track until the 

discrepancy could be resolved, as 

required by the railroad’s good faith 

challenge procedures. 

In May 2013, a Metro-North 

Commuter Railroad Co. (Metro-North) 

track foreman was struck and killed by 

a passenger train in Danbury, 

Connecticut, after a student dispatcher 

prematurely removed the control signal 

blocking devices that had been 

established for the track foreman’s work 

group, and cleared the signal for the 

passenger train. Investigation by FRA 

and the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) determined that the 

student dispatcher assumed that the 

foreman no longer needed the main 

track after the dispatcher had lined the 

foreman-piloted locomotive crane into 

an out-of-service track. Several weeks 

prior to this incident, a very similar 

incident occurred on the same railroad. 

However, in that situation, the roadway 

worker detected the advancing train 

movement in sufficient time to move 

away from the track and avoid being 

struck by the train. 

In May 2013, a CSX Transportation, 

Inc. (CSX) hi-rail vehicle collided with 

a CSX train while traveling southward 

on the CSX Florence Division, Charlotte 

Subdivision. The hi-rail was operating 

under an EC–1 authority (a form of 

exclusive track occupancy), but was 

struck when it encountered the 

northbound CSX train at milepost (MP) 

340.52. This location was approximately 

one and one-quarter miles outside of the 

authority limits the track inspector 

operating the vehicle had requested and 

was granted (i.e., from MP 339.1 to MP 

339.3). FRA’s investigation also 

determined that in requesting authority 

from the dispatcher, the track inspector 

stated his location as MP 339.5, which 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES