        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        RIN 0648-BI35
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 21-4; Trawl Catch Share Program

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Announcement of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council submitted Amendment 21-4 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan to the Secretary of Commerce for review. If approved, Amendment 21-4 would adjust the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Catch Share Program to complete outstanding elements of the program, respond to problems identified after program implementation, and modify outdated regulations. The proposed Amendment would convert bycatch allocations of canary and widow rockfish to set-asides in the at-sea whiting fishery and remove fixed formulas used to determine bycatch amounts of Pacific Ocean Perch, darkblotched rockfish and widow rockfish in the at-sea whiting sectors. Bycatch amounts would instead be determined through the biennial harvest specification process, which would offer more flexible bycatch management for the at-sea sectors. The proposed rule implementing this proposed FMP amendment includes other regulatory changes which would provide increased opportunity to trade individual fishing quota, accumulation limits for catcher-processor permits, and expand economic data collections. The rule will help to ensure the Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery achieves optimum yield, minimize costs of participation, provide fair and equitable access to fishery resources, and avoid adverse economic impacts to fishing communities.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 21-4 must be received on or before October 29, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0106, by any of the following methods;
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0106, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Barry A. Thom., Regional Administrator, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Information relevant to Amendment 21-4, which includes two memos categorically excluding this action from further National Environmental Protection Act review, a regulatory impact review (RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) are available for public review during business hours at the NMFS West Coast Regional Office at 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, or by requesting them via phone or the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Copies of additional reports referred to in this document may also be obtained from the Pacific Fishery Management Council.

        Electronic Access

        FMP Amendment 21-4, background information and documents are available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council website at http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fishery-management-plan/groundfish-amendments-in-development/. Additional background documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region website at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Colin Sayre, phone: 206-526-4656, or email: colin.sayre@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone off Washington, Oregon, and California under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared and NMFS implemented the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and through regulations at 50 CFR parts 600 and 660.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each regional fishery management council to submit any federal management plan (FMP) or plan amendment to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, immediately publish notification that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. This document announces that Amendment 21-4 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider the public input received during the comment period in determining whether to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 21-4 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. Amendment 21-4 proposes changing the bycatch allocation for canary and widow rockfish to set-asides in the at-sea whiting sectors and removing formulas for determining amounts of expected bycatch in the at-sea whiting sectors for three species: Pacific ocean perch (POP), darkblotched rockfish, and widow rockfish. This change would allow the at-sea whiting sector to more efficiently harvest its full allocation through set-aside management of constraining bycatch species.
        The proposed rule implementing the proposed FMP amendment also includes several follow-on action adjustments to regulations for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Catch Share Program to complete outstanding elements of the program, respond to problems identified after program implementation, and modify outdated regulations. These changes would improve the quota trading system to increase overall fishing quota utilization for the shorebased IFQ sector; ensure fair and equitable access to fishery resources in the event the C/P co-op dissolves; and provide a more complete socio-economic evaluation of Catch Share program performance.
        Proposed FMP Amendment: At-Sea Whiting Fishery Bycatch Needs and Set-Aside Management

        The proposed FMP amendment would adjust how bycatch allocations for darkblotched rockfish, Pacific ocean perch (POP), canary rockfish, and widow rockfish the at-sea whiting fishery are set and managed. The 2018 final rule implementing Amendment 21-3 (January 8, 2018; 83 FR 757) converted formal “hard cap” bycatch allocations of darkblotched and POP in at-sea whiting sectors to set-asides, which are an off the top deductions of expected bycatch from the annual catch limits (ACL) for the at-sea sectors. The proposed FMP amendment would convert formal bycatch allocations of canary and widow rockfish to set-asides in the at-sea whiting fishery as well as remove existing formulas used to determine set-aside amounts of darkblotched rockfish, POP, and widow rockfish. The Council would instead determine set-aside amounts biennially as part of the Pacific Coast Groundfish harvest specifications. If a sector exceeds its set-aside amount the fishery would not be subject to automatic closure. Instead, NMFS would have the authority to take routine inseason action when a set-aside is exceeded to prevent risk of exceeding other key harvest guidelines. Routine inseason actions include temporary area closures, and other temporary effort restrictions that would prevent overfishing of bycatch stocks, but allow the Pacific whiting sectors to harvest their full allocation. The Council recommended these management measures to reduce the risk of the at-sea Pacific whiting sectors not attaining their respective whiting allocations because of fishery closures to limit incidental catch of widow, canary, darkblotched rockfish or POP. The proposed FMP amendment is intended to allow the Council increased flexibility to adjust bycatch limits inseason for the at-sea whiting sectors within annual catch limits and harvest guidelines, address specific needs of the sector in a timely manner, and allow full attainment of at-sea whiting allocations by reducing the risk of automatic closure.
        Proposed Follow-On Action Regulatory Changes
        The proposed rule implementing Amendment 21-4 also includes the following regulatory changes:
        A. Shorebased IFQ Trawl Sector Quota Trading
        This action would allow the shorebased individual fishing quota (IFQ) sector to trade unused quota pounds (QP) after the end of a fishing year to cover deficits from the previous fishing year. In covering deficits after the end of the fishing year, vessel account owners would be allowed to cover QP deficits that exceed the annual vessel limit for a given stock. This action would also eliminate the September 1st expiration deadline for QP that have not been transferred from quota share accounts to vessel accounts. These changes would provide shorebased IFQ participants greater flexibility and economic efficiency to fully utilize IFQ issued each year.
        B. Catcher Processor (C/P) Sector Accumulation Limits
        This action would set accumulation limits for the Catcher Processor (C/P) co-op sector. The proposed rule would limit individuals or entities to owning or controlling a maximum of five C/P endorsed permits. Accumulation limits would become effective only in the event the current cooperative management structure for the at-sea C/P sector dissolves and an IFQ program is implemented.
        C. New Data Collections
        This action would require new data collections from C/P permit owners and Quota Share permit owners. C/P endorsed permit owners would be required to complete trawl ownership interest forms currently required during annual renewal of Catcher Vessel and Mothership permits. Catcher Vessels, Motherships, and shorebased processors are currently required to respond to this data collection. This requirement is necessary to monitor compliance with accumulation limits. The proposed action would also require Quota Share permit owners that do not also own, charter or lease a vessel, shorebased processor or first receiver site to submit participation and quota cost/earning information through a subset of the Catch Share Economic Data Collection program. The new economic data collections would allow managers to better evaluate Catch Share program performance.
        NMFS welcomes comments on the proposed FMP amendment through the end of the comment period. NMFS submitted a proposed rule to implement Amendment 21-4 and associated actions for Secretarial review and approval, and expects to publish and request public review and comment on proposed regulations to implement Amendment 21-4 and associated actions in the near future. For public comments on the proposed rule to be considered in the approval or disapproval decision on Amendment 21-4, those comments must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period for the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision.

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: August 27, 2019.
          Jennifer M. Wallace,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-18794 Filed 8-29-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 041018283-4283-01; I.D. 102204C]
        RIN 0648-AS81
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed interim rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement the days-at-sea (DAS) allocation procedure contained in the final rule implementing Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) under Magnuson-Stevens Act interim rule authority.  This DAS allocation procedure established a DAS baseline allocation based on historic participation in the NE multispecies DAS fishery.  The proposed rule to implement Amendment 13 did not include an explicit provision that would have capped a vessel's annual DAS usage at the vessel's DAS allocation prior to August 1, 2002, the annual DAS allocation for the 2001 fishing year (May 1, 2001 - April 30, 2002).  To rectify the omission of the DAS usage cap in the proposed rule, NMFS added language to include the cap in the regulatory text of the final rule implementing  Amendment 13 to ensure that the DAS baseline procedure complied with NMFS' understanding of the New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) intent.  To address the fact that the public was not provided with the opportunity to comment on the DAS usage cap, NMFS proposes to implement the DAS allocation procedure including the cap, as an interim rule through proposed and final rulemaking so as to provide opportunity for public comment consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before 5 P.M., local time, November 12, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed interim rule may be submitted by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail:  E-mail comments may be submitted to DASprocedure@noaa.gov.  Include in the subject line the following:  “Comments on the Proposed Interim Rule for the DAS Allocation Procedure.”
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov

          • Mail:  Comments submitted by mail should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator (RA), Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA  01930-2298.  Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on the Proposed Interim Rule for the DAS Allocation Procedure.”
          • Facsimile (fax):  Comments submitted by fax should be faxed to (978) 281-9135.
          NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this action, which is contained in the Classification section of this proposed interim rule.

          Copies of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) prepared for Amendment 13 and supporting this action are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, The Tannery Mill 2, Newburyport, MA  01950.  The FSEIS and RIR are also accessible via the internet at http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Allison Ferreira, Fishery Policy Analyst,  (978) 281-9103, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Amendment 13 to the FMP was developed by the Council to end overfishing and rebuild NE multispecies stocks managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  One of the management strategies used in Amendment 13 to achieve these objectives was to identify and then reduce effective effort.  Effective effort is the number of DAS that are actually fished by fishing vessels in contrast to the number of DAS that are allocated.  To reduce effective effort, Amendment 13 established a new DAS baseline allocation for individual vessels based on recent participation in the NE multispecies DAS fishery, and then reduced the number of DAS available to achieve a target fishing mortality level.  The final rule implementing Amendment 13 became effective on May 1, 2004 (69 FR 22906).
        The proposed rule for Amendment 13 (69 FR 4362, January 29, 2004) stated that a vessel's DAS baseline allocation would be determined by the highest number of reported DAS fished during a single qualifying fishing year in which the vessel landed at least 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) of regulated multispecies during the 6-year period from May 1, 1996, through April 30, 2002.  The proposed rule did not include an explicit provision, however, that would have capped a vessel's annual DAS usage at the vessel's annual DAS allocation prior to August 1, 2002; that is, the vessel's DAS allocation during the 2001 fishing year.  NMFS determined, before publishing the final rule to implement Amendment 13, that it was the intent of the Council to include such a cap on DAS usage, even though the Amendment 13 document did not include explicit language referring to the cap.  This determination was based, in part, on the fact that Amendment 13 and its FSEIS analyzed the DAS baseline allocation calculation assuming that a vessel's DAS usage was capped at its DAS allocation for the 2001 fishing year.  The FSEIS also assumed the cap would exclude carryover DAS from consideration in the calculation of a vessel's DAS baseline allocation.  This analysis was used as the baseline level of DAS from which DAS reductions were calculated in order to limit the total number of Category A DAS to a level that was likely to meet the Amendment 13 fishing mortality objectives.  To implement the final rule without an explicit cap would have been inconsistent with the Council's stated objective of reducing DAS to a level necessary to meet fishing mortality objectives.  Therefore, NMFS added explicit regulatory language to include the cap in the final rule implementing Amendment 13 to ensure consistency with the intent of the Council, as NMFS understood that intent.
        The validity of the DAS usage cap provision in the final rule implementing Amendment 13 has been called into question by certain members of the fishing industry because NMFS added the cap language to the regulatory text at the final rule stage, without giving the public an opportunity to comment on the new regulatory language, and because there was no explicit language in Amendment 13 referring to a cap on DAS usage.  To address any concerns that the DAS usage cap provision may have been promulgated without a full opportunity for public comment and to avoid any possibility of the cap being invalidated in mid-fishing year, this action proposes to establish the DAS baseline allocation procedure that had been included in the final rule implementing Amendment 13 to the FMP as an interim rule under the authority of section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that the Secretary of Commerce may implement an interim rule on a temporary basis to reduce overfishing.  If the cap were removed through the above mentioned legal challenge, then the total number of allocated DAS would increase, as more fully discussed in the IRFA discussion below, by 8.9 percent over the current allocation, thereby significantly increasing the possibility of overfishing.  To avoid this increased possibility of overfishing, this interim rule is necessary and justified under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Moreover, it provides the public an opportunity to comment on the inclusion of the cap.
        This interim rule would establish a definition of the DAS baseline allocation identical to the Amendment 13 final rule.  Therefore, no change in the regulatory language would be required to implement the  final interim rule.
        This proposed interim rule, if adopted, would ensure that the DAS usage cap is in place for the entire 2004 fishing year (May 1, 2004 - April 31, 2005), leaving the existing 2004 DAS allocations unchanged.  In the meantime, the Council is developing a framework adjustment action (Framework 40-B to the FMP) that would implement, on a permanent basis, its current intent concerning the inclusion of the DAS usage cap in the DAS baseline allocation procedure.  It is anticipated that, if approved, Framework 40-B will become effective May 1, 2005.
        Classification
        NMFS determined that the proposed interim rule is consistent with the FMP and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
        The proposed action would implement the DAS allocation procedure adopted in the final rule implementing Amendment 13, but not explicitly recommended in that amendment.  The impacts of this DAS allocation procedure were thoroughly analyzed in the FSEIS prepared for Amendment 13.  Specifically, the biological impacts were analyzed in sections 5.2.5.6, 5.2.6.1, and 5.2.8.4, the economic impacts were analyzed in section 5.4.9.4.5, the social impacts were analyzed in section 5.6.2.2.1.1, and the cumulative impacts were analyzed in section 5.7.7.2 of the FSEIS.  A notice of availability for the FSEIS prepared for Amendment 13 was published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2004 (69 FR 5856), with a 30-day cooling off period.  NMFS decided to partially approve Amendment 13 on March 18, 2004, and, in the record of decision (ROD) signed on March 18, 2004, concluded that all practicable means to avoid, minimize, or compensate for environmental harm resulting from the measures contained in the amendment had been adopted.  This action would not change the DAS allocation procedure implemented in the final rule for Amendment 13 and analyzed in Amendment 13 FSEIS, but establish it through the proposed rulemaking process in order to afford the public an opportunity to comment on the procedure.  Therefore, because this action does not change the determinations made in the FSEIS for Amendment 13 and in the corresponding ROD, further environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act is not necessary.
        Pursuant to the procedures established to implement section 6.0 of Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed interim rule is not significant.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A description of the action, why it is being considered and the legal basis for the action are contained in the preamble to this proposed interim rule.  This proposed interim rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any relevant Federal rules.  The universe of small entities to which this rule would apply is contained in the IRFA of the proposed rule implementing Amendment 13 and is not repeated here.  This rule would not impose any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements that are not already in existence as a result of the final rule implementing Amendment 13.
        As mentioned above, this proposed interim rule is being promulgated under the authority of section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  The proposed rule to implement Amendment 13 omitted the DAS usage cap from the DAS baseline procedures, but NMFS added regulatory language to the Amendment 13 final rule to implement such a cap.  This action would establish the DAS baseline allocation procedure contained in the Amendment 13 final rule consistent with the rulemaking procedures set forth under the APA.

        Two alternatives were considered for purposes of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis: (1) the groundfish fishery without a DAS usage cap for the 2004 fishing year; and (2) a DAS usage cap as analyzed in Amendment 13.  The analysis suggests that the lack of a DAS usage cap would increase the number of Category A DAS by 8.9 percent (approximately 3,900 A DAS) over the original allocation of A DAS under Amendment 13.  The allocation of A DAS would therefore rise to approximately 47,689 days from the present level of 43,773 days.  This increase in A DAS would benefit 390 vessels with an average increase of 10.8 A DAS (ranging from 0.02 to 52.69 A DAS) per vessel.  Amendment 13 analyzed the average daily returns by vessel category and concluded that average daily returns while fishing on a DAS would range from $1,139 to $2,683 depending on the vessel category.  Assuming that additional A DAS were re-allocated to the fishery, individual vessels may realize these net returns.  However, net returns may not be uniform within each vessel category because of the variation in number of A DAS that would be expected to return to the fishery (i.e., 0.02 to 52.69 A DAS).  Individual vessels would also need to consider other variables in combination with their allocated A DAS to determine the likelihood of exact changes in vessel profitability.  The preferred alternative as analyzed within Amendment 13 assumes the DAS usage cap is in place and the NE multispecies fishery is operating based on the DAS allocation procedure specified in the final rule for Amendment 13.  In this case, the establishment of a DAS usage cap, as set forth in the final rule, would neither affect the costs of current fishing operations for individual vessels, nor would it impose any additional compliance costs on NE groundfish vessels.  DAS allocations to individual vessels would remain unchanged, giving each vessel the same opportunity to earn revenues as they exist in the present fishery.  In addition, there would be no change to individual vessel profitability resulting from the maintenance of the present DAS schedule.  Furthermore, the NE multispecies fleet has been operating under a DAS usage cap for the past two years as a result of a series of interim and emergency actions taken by NMFS resulting from the Conservation Law Foundation v. Evans litigation (67 FR 50292, August 1, 2002; 68 FR 2919, January 22, 2003; and 68 FR 38234, June 27, 2003).  Individual vessels have received reduced DAS allocations based on this cap and have already experienced economic impacts that would be similar to those resulting from the existence of the DAS usage cap for the 2004 fishing season.
        Implementing the preferred alternative (i.e., capping the DAS baseline at a vessel's 2001 allocation) is critical in order to be consistent with the intent of the Council's goal of fishing capacity reduction.  Allowing vessels to have a baseline DAS allocation that exceeds the level of recent historic allocation is counter to the stated goal of Amendment 13's alternatives to control capacity.  The non-preferred alternative would also have the potential of slowing rebuilding efforts and would lead to additional DAS reductions in future years, thus resulting in greater adverse economic impacts.  Finally, operating the fishery without a DAS usage cap and inserting the extra effort back into the fishery would not be consistent with Amendment 13 and the goals and objectives the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its national standards.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: October 22, 2004
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

          1.  The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          2.  In § 648.82, paragraph (c)(1) introductory text is republished to read as follows:

            § 648.82
            Effort-control program for NE multispecies limited access vessels.

            (c) Used DAS baseline—(1) Calculation of used DAS baseline. For all valid limited access NE multispecies DAS vessels, vessels issued a valid small vessel category permit, and NE multispecies Confirmation of Permit Histories, beginning with the 2004 fishing year, a vessel's used DAS baseline shall be based on the fishing history associated with its permit and shall be determined by the highest number of reported DAS fished during a single qualifying fishing year, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section, during the 6-year period from May 1, 1996, through April 30, 2002, not to exceed the vessel's annual allocation prior to August 1, 2002.  A qualifying year is one in which a vessel landed 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) or more of regulated multispecies, based upon landings reported through dealer reports (based on live weights of landings submitted to NMFS prior to April 30, 2003).  If a vessel that was originally issued a limited access NE multispecies permit was lawfully replaced in accordance with the replacement restrictions specified in §648.4(a), then the used DAS baseline shall be defined based upon the DAS used by the original vessel and by subsequent vessel(s) associated with the permit during the qualification period specified in this paragraph (c)(1).  The used DAS baseline shall be used to calculate the number and category of DAS that are allocated for use in a given fishing year, as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

      [FR Doc. 04-24104 Filed 10-25-04; 2:01 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
        39 CFR Part 3001
        [Docket No. RM2012-7; Order No. 1459]
        Analytical Methods Used in Periodic Reporting

          AGENCY:
          Postal Regulatory Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service petition to initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes in analytical principles (Proposals Six and Seven) used in periodic reporting. This notice provides an opportunity for the public to comment on potential changes in periodic reporting rules.

          DATES:
          1. Initial comments are due: October 5, 2012.
          2. Reply comments are due: October 15, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit comments electronically by accessing the “Filing Online” link in the banner at the top of the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing the Commission's Filing Online system at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filing-online/login.aspx. Commenters who cannot submit their views electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section as the source for case-related information for advice on alternatives to electronic filing.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820 (case-related information) or DocketAdmins@prc.gov (electronic filing assistance).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On September 4, 2012, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes in the analytical methods approved for use in periodic reporting.1

            1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposals Six and Seven), September 4, 2012 (Petition).

          Proposal Six: Use of Foreign Postal Settlement System as Sole Source for Reporting of Inbound International Revenue, Pieces, and Weights. The Postal Service proposes to use the Foreign Postal Settlement (FPS) system as the sole source for the International Cost and Revenue Analysis's (ICRA) reporting of Inbound International revenue, pieces, and weight. The Postal Service states that using the FPS data source for the ICRA's reporting of Inbound International revenue, pieces, and weight would improve the consistency among the ICRA, RPW, and financial statements, and that it would eliminate the need to make separate Booked Inbound International revenue calculations 2

           in the ICRA. Petition at 4. Using FPS would also eliminate the need for the ICRA to calculate inbound volumes based on weight data from the St. Louis Accounting Service Center (ASC) coupled with estimated items per kilogram data from System for International Revenue and Volume Inbound (SIRVI) sampling system. However, the Postal Service also states that this proposal does not entirely eliminate the need for both the Booked and Imputed versions because it does not address the Outbound International calculations. Id.

            2 The Postal Service has been producing two versions of the ICRA, an Imputed version that relies on ICRA model calculations and a Booked version that forces the ICRA model revenue calculations to agree with other financial statements.

        The Postal Service has filed as library reference USPS-LR-RM2012-7-NP1 a version of USPS-FY11-NP2 revised to incorporate this proposal. This library reference is non-public. Id. at 2. The Postal Service states that USPS-LR-RM2012-7-NP1 displays two impacts: (1) A comparison between the FY 2011 Imputed version as filed in USPS-FY11-NP2 and the proposed methodology; and (2) a comparison between the FY 2011 Booked version as filed in USPS-FY11-NP2 and the proposed methodology. In the two comparisons, pieces and weight based on FPS increase 2.9 percent and 2.0 percent, respectively, over the USPS-FY11-NP2 amounts. In the Imputed versus proposed comparison, revenue decreases 0.3 percent and volume variable costs decrease 1.2 percent due to changes in the distribution of volumes and weights by country under FPS. In the Booked versus proposed comparison, revenue decreases 0.8 percent and volume variable costs are essentially unchanged. Id. at 4-5.

          Proposal Seven: Methodology Change to Replace Parcel Densities in the Transportation Cost System Highway Subsystem. The Postal Service proposes a methodology change to replace the parcel densities in the Transportation Cost System (TRACS) Highway Subsystem. Id. at 6. These densities are used to develop distribution keys to assign volume-variable costs in Cost Segment 8 (Vehicle Service Driver costs) and Cost Segment 14 (purchased transportation costs) to postal products. The Postal Service states that currently, separate study-based estimates of mailpiece densities by mail category and shape for letters, flats, and parcels are required to convert sampled weight information to cubic feet. Under the proposed methodology, the study-based parcel densities would be replaced with parcel dimensional data now regularly captured in TRACS-Highway tests. Id.

        The Postal Service states that beginning with Quarter 1 of FY 2012, the TRACS-Highway Subsystem began utilizing actual, measured length, width and height information for parcel-shaped pieces. Id. Attachment at 1. As a result, the cubic foot component of the cubic foot mile distribution key for parcels can be determined directly from the product of the three dimensions. These direct measurements obviate the need for Density-Study information and periodic study updates for parcels. The Postal Service believes that this methodology is more reliable since cubic feet information is continuously updated automatically across sampling periods. Id. For the subset of parcels identified as irregular in shape, the Origin-Destination System and Revenue, Pieces, and Weight based factor of 0.785 would be applied. For all mail shapes, no other changes would be required or made to the current TRACS-Highway processing system and methodology, including the development of the miles component of the cubic foot-mile distribution key. Id. at 1-2.

        The Postal Service states that there is a small proportion of sampled parcels for which useable dimensional information is unavailable (approximately 5 percent of sampled parcels). For these parcels a smoothed, composite, four-quarter density ratio would be developed by major mail category to convert sampled weight measures to cubic feet measures. The Postal Service states that a smoothed, ratio-based density measure helps to adjust for seasonal swings as well as to reduce sampling variation associated with the smaller mail categories. Id. at 2.
        The Postal Service states that Media and Library Mail is the product group most affected by the proposed methodology change. That product group would receive a change in cost per piece of $−0.021, a relative change of −2 percent. Parcel Post would receive the next largest change in cost per piece at $−0.010, with a relative change of 0 percent. All other product groups would have changes in cost per piece of less than $0.010. Petition at 7.

          It is ordered:

        1. The Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposals Six and Seven), filed September 4, 2012, is granted.
        2. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2012-7 to consider the matters raised by the Postal Service's Petition.
        3. Interested persons may submit comments on Proposals Six and Seven no later than October 5, 2012.
        4. Reply comments are due no later than October 15, 2012.
        5. Derrick Dennis is appointed to serve as the Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

        6. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

          By the Commission.
          Shoshana M. Grove,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2012-22350 Filed 9-11-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Transit Administration
        49 CFR Chapter VI
        [Docket No. FTA-2014-0012]
        RIN 2132-ZA02
        Interim Safety Certification Training Program Provisions

          AGENCY:
          Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed interim safety certification training provisions; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This document seeks public comment on FTA's proposed requirements for the interim safety certification training provisions for Federal and State safety oversight personnel and their contractor support who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems not otherwise regulated by another Federal agency. Additionally, FTA proposes that designated safety oversight personnel of public transportation systems that receive Federal transit funding may voluntarily participate in the interim safety certification training program.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before June 30, 2014. Any comments received after the deadline will be considered to the extent practicable.

          ADDRESSES:
          Please submit your comments by only one of the following methods, and please identify your submission by docket number FTA-2014-0012:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. Mail: Send comments to Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Fax: Send comments to Docket Operations at (202) 493-2251.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.

            Instructions: You must include the agency name (Federal Transit Administration) and docket number (FTA-2014-0012) for this document at the beginning of your comments. Submit two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail. For confirmation that FTA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. Please be aware that all comments received will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, and will be available to internet users. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477.

            Docket Access: For access to the docket to read background documents and comments received, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For program issues, contact Ruth Lyons, FTA, Office of Safety and Oversight, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-366-2233 or email: Ruth.Lyons@dot.gov). For legal issues, contact Bruce Walker, FTA, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-366-9109 or email: Bruce.Walker@dot.gov). Office hours are Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (EST), except Federal holidays.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          I. Overview
          II. Purpose
          III. Applicability
          IV. Interim Safety Certification Training Provisions
          A. Components of the Interim Provisions
          1. Safety Management System Training Component
          2. Technical Training Component
          V. Next Steps and Public Participation

        I. Overview
        On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public Law 112-141, (“MAP-21”), which sets a new framework for Federal public transportation safety programs. MAP-21 provides FTA with authority to set new rules and standards for how FTA, State Safety Oversight Agencies (SSOAs), transit agencies, and other transit stakeholders will work together to ensure the safety of transit riders, employees, and the public.

        As part of this safety authority, MAP-21 requires FTA to establish a safety certification training program for Federal, State, and other designated personnel directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation systems. 49 U.S.C. 5329(c). As required by subsection (c)(1), FTA will establish a permanent training program through the rulemaking process. To that end, FTA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on all aspects of FTA's safety authority, including the training program, which was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013.1
           FTA is currently reviewing the comments received to the ANPRM and will move forward as expeditiously as possible on notices of proposed rulemakings on all aspects of the ANPRM, including the training provisions.

            1 FTA ANPRM, “The National Public Transportation Safety Plan, the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program; Transit Asset Management,” at 78 FR 61251 (Oct 3, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf.

        However, prior to the finalization of a permanent program, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(2), Congress required FTA to establish “interim provisions” for the certification and training of safety oversight personnel. The interim provisions will be in effect until the effective date of the final rule established under subsection (c)(1).
        This notice proposes the interim provisions required by 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(2). Once the interim provisions take effect, compliance with the interim provisions will be incorporated as a grant condition for State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) 5329(e) grant recipients and will be a recommended voluntary activity for FTA rail fixed guideway recipients of section 5307 and 5311 funding. In addition, recognizing that safety enhancement and promotion is of universal interest within the transit industry; FTA encourages bus grant recipients to voluntarily participate in appropriate components of the interim provisions.

        FTA is seeking public comment on its proposal for the interim safety certification training provisions. Following review of the public comments, FTA will publish final interim provisions, which will remain in effect until FTA issues a final rule for the safety certification training program in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1).
        II. Purpose
        The interim safety certification training provisions are designed to support FTA's recent adoption of the Safety Management System (SMS) approach to improve the safety of public transportation.2
           FTA is proposing that the interim provisions consist of: (1) A required training program promoting SMS and ensuring technical competencies for State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) personnel and FTA personnel who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems not subject to FRA regulation; and (2) a voluntary program promoting adoption of SMS for employees of public transportation systems who are directly responsible for safety oversight. Lessons learned through this initial class of personnel will assist with shaping the development of the notice of proposed rulemaking to effect the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1).

            2 See FTA Dear Colleague letter dated May 13, 2013 at http://www.fta.dot.gov/newsroom/12910_15391.html.

        FTA recognizes the transit industry has voluntarily participated in the Transit Safety Security Program (TSSP) program since 1998, with over 700 transit system personnel and 35 SSOA personnel receiving certificates. Those who successfully completed the program were issued certificates of completion indicating broad-based training in safety and security principles applicable to transit system safety, operations and management, as well as implementation of the requirements of 49 CFR part 659. However, as FTA developed the proposed interim provisions, we evaluated the competencies of the existing TSSP and noted gaps relative to the SMS framework FTA has adopted for its safety programs.
        The existing TSSP program was designed to address competencies that support the development and implementation of system safety, security, and emergency management program plans as reflected in 49 CFR part 659. Alternatively, the proposed interim program is designed to promote the implementation and oversight of SMS safety policies, risk management, safety assurance, and safety promotion programs and initiatives through the effective use of SMS tools and techniques. We note that although there are some similarities, relative to SMS principles within the requirements of 49 CFR part 659; the proposed SMS framework applies significantly more emphasis on a management level safety focus.
        The objectives within the SMS curriculum were built from FTA's proposed SMS framework which uses a different approach to identifying hazards and controlling their potential consequences, continual assessment of safety risk, and an effective employee safety reporting system. The revised FTA-sponsored training will promote the development, implementation and oversight of SMS safety policies, risk management, safety assurance, and safety promotion programs and initiatives through the effective use of SMS tools and techniques, thus addressing the gaps noted with the current TSSP curriculum.
        FTA believes the proposed provisions will enhance safety by focusing on organization-wide safety policy, formal methods of identifying hazards and controlling their potential consequences, continual assessment of safety risk, and an effective employee safety reporting system. Similar to the completion requirements of the current voluntary FTA-sponsored TSSP certificate program, FTA proposes that participants should complete the safety certification training program within a three (3) year timeframe.
        As discussed above, FTA considered the existing voluntary TSSP program when developing the proposed interim provisions. FTA requests comment on the following:
        1. Are there existing safety certification programs other than those described in this document that FTA should consider for personnel with direct safety oversight of transit systems?
        2. How should FTA consider these additional training and certification programs in finalizing the interim provisions?
        III. Applicability
        As the rigor of safety oversight increases, we must ensure that personnel with direct safety oversight responsibility have core competencies and skills to achieve the safety goals for the public transportation industry. To promote SMS adoption throughout the public transportation industry and to improve rail transit safety oversight technical competency, FTA proposes that the “required” component of the interim provisions apply to the following “covered personnel:”
        (1) FTA personnel and contractors who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems; and
        (2) SSOA personnel and contractors who implement Federal safety oversight programs, including persons who conduct safety audits and examinations of rail fixed guideway public transportation systems not subject to FRA regulation.
        In addition, FTA proposes that the following personnel voluntarily participate in the interim safety certification training provisions 3
          :

            3 SMS Awareness training is strongly recommended for all employees of public transportation systems, including front line safety personnel, to assist with deploying an effective SMS.

        (1) Personnel employed by recipients of section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants and section 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas (formerly known as Non-Urbanized Formula Grants) who are directly responsible for safety oversight of rail fixed guideway public transportation systems not subject to FRA regulation.4

            4 FTA proposes that all recipients identify their “covered personnel.” At a minimum, FTA expects the designation of “covered personnel” will include the General Manager/Chief Executive Officer, Chief Safety Officer, and staff directly responsible for safety oversight of the recipient's rail transit system.

        (2) Personnel employed by recipients of section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants and section 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas who are directly responsible for safety oversight of non-rail transit systems (e.g., passenger ferry, bus, bus rapid transit, and community transportation providers); and
        (3) Personnel of State Departments of Transportation or other State agencies that are directly responsible for safety oversight of passenger ferry, bus, bus rapid transit, and community transportation providers that receive section 5311 Federal transit funds.

        On May 31, 2012, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementing regulation at 5 CFR 1320.13, FTA received approval from OMB for an Information Collection for the State Safety Oversight Program (Information Collection number 2132-0558). The recordkeeping necessary to comply with the proposed interim provisions is consistent with the recordkeeping required for SSOA and rail fixed guideway public transportation agency training in the approved information collection.

        IV. Interim Safety Certification Training Provisions
        The proposed interim training provisions initial focus is to enhance the technical competencies and capabilities of Federal and State personnel and contractors who conduct safety audits and examinations of rail fixed guideway public transportation systems, as well as rail transit personnel who are directly responsible for safety oversight for these systems. FTA recognizes the important role of its State partners in performing this public safety function. However, under the current regulatory construct, there is no uniformity with regard to training requirements. As a result, varying degrees of proficiency and professional knowledge, along with inconsistent application of safety requirements have developed. Additionally, FTA recognizes the benefit of allowing safety oversight personnel of rail fixed guideway systems to share in the opportunity to receive similar training as those who audit their safety activities.
        As a first step, FTA is proposing to organize these interim training provisions around a series of competencies and basic skills that support training gaps indicated in National Transportation Safety Board accident investigations, FTA State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) audits, triennial reviews and annual reports submitted by SSOAs, and FTA's National Transit Database assessments and special studies. The competencies are based on SMS principles and the technical capabilities required for examining and overseeing implementation of safety program elements in the transit industry. A list of proposed competency areas and accompanying learning objectives are listed in this document as Appendix A to the Proposed Interim Provisions for Safety Certification Training—Competency Areas.
        A consistent gap noted throughout our findings is the need to enhance the ability to effectively manage safety risks. FTA believes the interim provisions competencies will support key features of SMS to include: (1) Improving management accountability of safety; (2) further collaboration between management and labor to effectively prioritize safety hazards; (3) more effectively managing safety resource allocation; (4) improving safety risk analysis; and (5) broadening safety assurance through increased confidence in safety risk controls.

        Supporting documents used to identify the training gaps and the proposed competencies, as well as a list frequently asked questions (FAQs) may be reviewed with the docket for this document and may also be viewed at the following weblink: http://www.fta.dot.gov/tso_15918.html. Below are a few examples of documentation that support the competencies FTA is proposing for the interim provisions:

        • Government Accountability Office (GAO) Reports with Discussion and/or Findings relating to SSO training and qualification: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-199.

        • Rail Transit: Observations on FTA's State Safety Oversight Program and Potential Change in Oversight Role GAO-10-293T: Published: Dec. 8, 2009. Publicly Released: Dec. 8, 2009. http://www.gao.gov/products/A88569.

        • National Transportation Safety Board Hearing; Collision of Two Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Metrorail Trains Near Fort Totten Station http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/RAR1002.pdf.

        • National Transportation Safety Board Accident Brief: Collision between Two Miami-Dade Transit Metromovers: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/fulltext/RAB1206.html.

        A. Components of the Interim Provisions
        FTA proposes that “covered personnel” of FTA, SSOAs, and applicable contractor support be required to complete a series of courses and engage in structured training as noted below. In addition, covered personnel of rail fixed guideway transit systems will be allowed to voluntarily participate in this proposed curriculum.
        The proposed interim safety certification training provisions will contain two distinct components. First, covered personnel will complete a series of training courses on SMS principles, tools and techniques. FTA began the first phase of course pilots in February 2014, and anticipates the initial rollout of courses by September 2014. Second, and as discussed further in section 2 below, FTA and SSOA personnel and their respective contractor support will be required to develop technical training covering the competency areas specific to the rail transit system(s) for which safety oversight responsibility is exercised (e.g., track inspections, safety systems and technologies, traction power, etc.).
        Upon satisfactory completion of the applicable requirements as noted below, FTA proposes to provide a certificate of completion, indicating that the individual has satisfied the requirements of the interim training provisions. The certificate will expire one (1) year after it is issued and will require annual refresher training to maintain its validity. However, FTA believes that the final rule implementing the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program will be in effect before any of the interim certifications expire; therefore, FTA will ensure that training completed under the interim provisions will be factored into the development of the final rule.
        To maximize participation, FTA is proposing that a significant share of the cost associated with the interim provisions be eligible for Federal funding. Recipients of sections 5307 or 5311 funds may use up to 0.5 percent of those funds to cover up to 80 percent of the cost of participation by an employee with direct safety oversight responsibility for the public transportation system. Participation by SSOA personnel with direct safety oversight responsibilities may be an eligible expense for section 5329(e)(6)(A) funds.
        1. Safety Management System Training Component
        As noted above, FTA has identified competencies that reinforce the four (4) functional components of SMS—safety policy, risk management, safety assurance, and safety promotion—which are described in Appendix A to the Proposed Interim Provisions for Safety Certification Training—Competency Areas. SMS is a management approach that ensures each public transportation agency, no matter its size or service environment, has the necessary organizational structures, accountabilities, policies and procedures in place to direct and control resources to optimally manage safety.

        The proposed interim SMS training for mandatory and voluntary participants will be tailored to the role of the employee and the mode of public transportation. To that end, FTA is proposing to revise existing training and creating new courses to promote SMS-centric competencies. The revised competencies will expand training beyond the current TSSP Certificate program which was developed to support the implementation of system safety, security, and emergency management program plans. Although the proposed interim curriculum is largely focused on SMS and technical training; FTA request comments concerning other programs or approaches that may enhance the professional and technical skills of covered personnel and public transit personnel with direct safety oversight responsibility.

        As noted above, similar to the TSSP Certificate program, FTA is proposing that the training be completed within a three (3) year period. Once covered personnel receive their certificate of completion, annual refresher training will be required to maintain the certificate. If a required participant does not attain or maintain their certificate within the designated timeframe, FTA proposes the person will not be able to perform their functions or be paid using FTA funds. It will be the responsibility of those covered under this program to maintain certificates and refresher training records, which will be subject to audit under the SSOA program.
        Also similar to the TSSP Certificate program, FTA proposes that each of the SMS courses will include up to three (3) days of training (except for the one (1) day SMS Leadership course and the one (1) hour SMS Awareness course). The estimated length of the training was derived from an evaluation of the proposed competencies and associated learning objectives and the amount of time required to deliver the content. This is approximately 144 hours of class time over the three (3) year period between FY 2014 and FY 2016 for the participants. The week-long indication below is an estimate, as it includes training time along with days for potential travel. However, we note that the existing FTA training model focuses on delivering courses at local host agencies which reduces travel requirements for the majority of participants. FTA plans to continue this delivery model for the interim safety certification training program which would continue to reflect the reduced cost and burden associated with local attendance. Below is the proposed curriculum for the interim provisions:
        Required Curriculum:
        • FTA and SSOA personnel and contractors 5
          —six (6) one (1) week courses (two (2) days of travel, three (3) days class time):

            5 FTA anticipates that this would include approximately 40 FTA personnel and contractors and 70 to 120 SSOA personnel.

        One (1) hour course on SMS Awareness—e-learning delivery
        Level 100: SMS Principles for Rail Transit
        Level 101: SMS Principles for SSO Programs
        Level 200: Advanced SMS Principles for Rail Transit
        Level 201: Advanced SMS Risk Management
        Level 300: SMS Risk Control Strategies
        Level 301: SMS Assurance and Auditing Normal Operations and Risk Controls
        SMS Executive Leadership—one (1) day course
        Voluntary Curriculum:
        • Transit agency personnel with direct responsibility for safety oversight of rail transit systems not subject to FRA regulation 6
          —five (5) one week courses (two (2) days of travel, three (3) days class time):

            6 FTA anticipates that this will include approximately 260 transit agency personnel.

        One (1) hour course on SMS Awareness—e-learning delivery
        Level 100: SMS Principles for Rail Transit
        Level 200: Advanced SMS Principles for Rail Transit
        Level 201: Advanced SMS Risk Management
        Level 300: SMS Risk Control Strategies
        Level 301: SMS Assurance through Auditing Normal Operations and Risk SMS Executive Leadership—one (1) day course

        • Non-rail transit Section 5307 and 5311 recipient executive leadership 7
          —One (1) day course:

            7 FTA estimates that approximately 200 executives would be eligible for this voluntary training.

        SMS Executive Leadership—one (1) day course
        • Non-rail transit Section 5307 and 5311 recipient personnel with direct safety oversight responsibility and State DOTs overseeing safety programs for 5311 sub-recipients 8
          —two (2) one (1) week courses (two (2) days of travel, three (3) days class time):

            8 FTA estimates that approximately 100 to 275 staff from larger 5307/5311recipients, approximately 1500 staff from smaller 5307/5311 recipients, and 30 staff from state DOT's would be eligible for this voluntary training.

        One (1) hour course on SMS Awareness—e-learning delivery
        Level 102: SMS Principles for Bus Transit
        Level 202: Advanced SMS Principles for Bus Transit

        • Employee of any non-rail transit FTA recipient 9
          —one (1) hour course

            9 FTA has not estimated how many people would be eligible for this voluntary training.

        SMS Awareness—e-learning delivery

        We also note that FTA will continue to sponsor safety initiatives for bus transit agencies, including small and rural systems, as well as other recipients of Federal public transportation funds. For example, personnel can log on to FTA's Bus Transit Safety Program Web site (http://bussafety.fta.dot.gov/) and complete the safety self-assessment and participate in the soon-to-be-released e-learning series. FTA strongly encourages safety professionals in each of these communities to continue to voluntarily participate in these safety initiatives, as well as participate in applicable courses developed for the interim provisions.
        Further, FTA is proposing a one-hour SMS Awareness course that will have universal applicability throughout the public transportation industry. Since a critical element of SMS is safety awareness at all levels of an organization, FTA encourages transit system personnel at all levels to voluntarily participate in the one-hour SMS Awareness training when it becomes available online.
        The proposed interim provisions are intended as an initial step to improving the technical proficiency and competency of those directly responsible for safety oversight. However, it is important to note that concurrently, FTA is in the process of proposing a regulatory framework for safety certification training. Participating in the interim provisions program not only enhances public transit safety in the near term, but will better position participants for safety training requirements likely to be proposed in future safety certification training rulemakings.
        As discussed above, the proposed interim provisions will have mandatory and voluntary components. FTA requests comment on the following:
        3. The proposal to require Federal and State Safety Oversight Agency personnel and their contractor support to participate in the interim provisions but allow the voluntary participation of public transportation personnel with direct safety oversight responsibilities.
        4. Are there segments of the existing TSSP program that might be utilized to address the gaps and proposed competencies identified by FTA?
        5. Is it possible to reduce the time commitment or other burdens associated with the proposed interim provisions, while still providing the necessary SMS and technical training? What additional or alternative training should be considered, and why?
        2. Technical Training Component

        In addition to the SMS training component above, FTA proposes the second component of the interim provisions will require FTA and each SSOA to develop a technical training program for covered personnel and contractor support personnel who perform safety audits and examinations. FTA proposes that each SSOA submit its interim technical training program to FTA for review and evaluation as part of the ongoing SSOA certification program under 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(7). This review and approval process would support the consultation required between FTA and SSOAs regarding the staffing and qualification of the SSOAs' employees and other designated personnel in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(3).
        Recognizing that each rail fixed guideway public transportation system has unique characteristics, FTA proposes that each technical training program identify the tasks related to inspections, examinations, and audits, and all activities requiring sign-off, which must be performed by the SSOA to carry out its safety oversight requirements, and identify the skills and knowledge necessary to perform each task at that system. At a minimum, each program will include technical training in the following competency areas appropriate for the specific rail fixed guideway system(s) for which safety audits and examinations are conducted:
        • Knowledge of the organizational structure of the rail transit system(s).
        • Agency Safety Plans.
        • Agency Safety Audit Process.
        • Rulebooks.
        • Vehicles.
        • Track (to include track inspection).
        • Tunnels and structures.
        • Traction power.
        • Signal systems.
        • Safety systems and technologies.
        • Safety human factors.
        The length of time for the technical training will depend on the skill level of the SSOA personnel. However, we would anticipate no less than one-week per year of technical training, in addition to the 2 weeks per year for the SMS training. To that end, FTA proposes that each SSOA technical training program that is submitted for review and approval will:
        ○ Include both classroom and hands-on lessons designed to impart the skills and knowledge identified as necessary to perform each task (to include competency areas listed above). The curriculum should specifically address the performance of the tasks identified.
        ○ Require covered personnel to successfully:
         Complete training that covers the skills and knowledge the covered personnel will need to effectively perform his or her tasks.
         Pass a written and/or oral examination covering the skills and knowledge required for the covered personnel to effectively perform his or her tasks.
         Individually demonstrate hands-on capability to perform his or her tasks to the satisfaction of the appropriate SSOA supervisor or designated instructor.
        ○ Develop a process to ensure that covered personnel are appropriately participating in the training program or have successfully completed it.
        ○ Establish equivalencies or conduct written and oral examinations to allow covered personnel to demonstrate that they possess the skill and qualification required to perform their tasks.
        ○ Require annual refresher training to maintain technical skills and abilities which includes classroom and hands-on training, as well as testing. Observation and evaluation of actual performance of duties may be used to meet the hands-on portion of this requirement, provided that such testing is documented.
        ○ Require that adequate records be maintained to demonstrate the current qualification status of covered personnel assigned to carry out the oversight program. Records may be maintained either electronically or in writing and must be provided to FTA upon request. Records must include the following information concerning each covered personnel:
         Name;
         The date each training course was completed and the proficiency test score(s);
         The content of each training course successfully completed;
         A description of the covered personnel's hands-on performance applying the skills and knowledge required to perform the tasks that the employee will be responsible for performing and the factual basis supporting the determination;
         The tasks the covered personnel is deemed qualified to perform; and
         Provide the date that the covered personnel's status as qualified to perform the tasks expires, and the date in which annual refresher training is due.
        ○ Establish a program to ensure the qualification of contractors performing oversight activities. SSOAs may use demonstrations, previous training and education, and written and oral examinations to determine if contractors possess the skill and qualification required to perform their tasks.
        ○ Periodically assess the effectiveness of the technical training program. One method of validation and assessment could be through the use of efficiency tests or periodic review of employee performance.
        With regard to the technical training described above, FTA request comments on the following:
        6. Is it possible to reduce the time commitment or other burdens associated with the proposed technical training requirements proposed for SSOA personnel and their contractors? Is there additional or alternative technical training that should be considered, and why?
        V. Next Steps and Public Participation
        This document seeks input from the public on FTA's implementation of new interim safety certification training provisions to ensure they are clear, effective, and reasonable. It is important that transit agencies, State DOTs, SSOAs, and other organizations that could potentially be affected by these interim provisions, as well as any other interested members of the public, take this opportunity to share thoughts, concerns, ideas, and general comments on the topics presented herein.
        After FTA reviews the comments collected through this document, FTA will publish final interim safety training certification provisions. FTA will also continue to develop a permanent training program through the separate rulemaking process. Although the two processes will remain separate, the agency anticipates that its experience with the interim provisions will assist with the development of a proposed rule for the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training program under 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1).

          Issued in Washington, DC, pursuant to authority under 49 CFR § 1.91.
          Therese W. McMillan,
          Deputy Administrator.

          Appendix A to the Proposed Interim Provisions for Safety Certification Training—Competency Areas

              Competency area
              Description of competency

              SMS Awareness
              • Orient participants to the general concepts in safety management systems (SMS).

              • Introduce participants to the importance of data-driven decision making for SMS implementation in the public transportation industry.

              • Describe safety management systems as a data-driven decision making system for management.

              • Understand safety risk management and safety assurance.

              • List the activities and tools underlying safety risk management and safety assurance.

              SMS Leadership
              • List the advantages of effective safety management and the benefits that FTA anticipates SMS adoption will bring the transit industry.

              • Categorize the activities performed by an Accountable Executive and explain why he or she is so important to effective SMS implementation.

              • Recognize and describe the four major components of FTA's SMS framework.

              • Identify and describe how to proactively utilize the interfaces between SMS, Finance, Human Resources and Asset Management to support executive decision-making.

              • List specific tools that help executives incorporate SMS into their decision-making.

              • Classify the SMS leadership activities that executives can perform as part of their day-to-day management process.

              Level 100: SMS Principles for Rail Transit
              • Detail how and why FTA came to adopt the SMS framework as the foundation of its new safety regulatory program.• State and describe the four major components and 12 elements of FTA's SMS framework.

              • Write a sample Safety Policy Statement that ensures executive accountability and commitment for safety.

              • Provide and discuss sample safety objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) used at your agency.

              • Distinguish among traditional system safety risk management approaches and the types of analyses required for SMS framework implementation.

              • List and describe SMS safety assurance tools and techniques.

              • Identify sources of operating and maintenance data to support the safety review of normal operations.

              • Describe the major activities that can be performed to promote SMS and safety communication with transit employees.

              • Discuss and outline the needed activities and timeline for SMS implementation from initial policy commitment through gap assessment and implementation planning to training and monitoring.

              • Recognize and explain the purpose of the SMS Gap Analysis Tool and complete sample sections.

              • Present and discuss results of sample SMS Gap Analysis with classmates and instructor.

              • Categorize information from SMS Gap Analysis into the SMS Implementation Plan.

              • Demonstrate proficiency in the use of FTA-supplied materials, including SMS Guidebook and supporting forms.

              Level 101: SMS Principles for SSO Programs
              • Discuss and demonstrate the correct usage of SMS and rail transit terminology and nomenclature.• Identify and discuss the major objectives in overseeing and evaluating SMS implementation in the rail transit environment.

              • Compare and contrast the four major components and 12 elements in FTA's SMS framework with the existing 49 CFR Part 659 regulation.

              • Identify and discuss performance measures and tools to assess rail transit safety performance.

              • Develop a sample SMS surveillance plan for a rail transit agency in your jurisdiction applicable to the level of SMS implementation at the rail transit agency.

              • Illustrate and list safety risk management and safety assurance tools that can be used to support safety oversight.

              • Demonstrate how to intervene effectively with the rail transit agency based on monitoring of SMS surveillance plan.

              • Detail the phases of transition in SMS implementation and potential pitfalls and areas of concern for both the rail transit agency and the SSO agency.

              Level 102: SMS Principles for Bus Transit
              • Detail how and why FTA came to adopt the SMS framework as the foundation of its new safety regulatory program.• State and describe the four major components and 12 elements of FTA's SMS framework.

              • Demonstrate how to use FTA's SMS gap assessment and implementation planning tools for bus transit agencies.

              • Identify safety risk management and safety assurance tools and techniques and how to apply them in the bus transit environment.

              • Describe the major activities that can be performed to promote SMS and safety communication throughout the bus transit agency.

              • Categorize performance measures and activities that can be used to monitor the implementation of the SMS at the bus transit agency.

              Level 200: Advanced SMS Principles for Rail Transit
              • Illustrate how to assess a safety policy statement for thoroughness and effectiveness of safety objectives and performance targets.• Describe ways in which the accountable executive should be committed to safety and use safety inputs in decision-making.

              • Summarize and list the safety responsibilities of key management personnel and committees in the rail transit environment.

              • Highlight typical SMS documentation control procedures.

              • Compare and contrast different hazard identification and risk management methods and approaches.

              • Outline the steps in safety action planning in the rail transit environment.

              • Discuss key elements in safety performance monitoring, including auditing and real-time monitoring of rail transit operations.

              • Describe how incident investigation and reporting using SMS principles differs from existing requirements in 49 CFR Part 659.

              • Outline how the management of change (including organizational changes with regard to safety responsibilities) can be approached in the transit industry.

              • List ten major activities to support safety promotion.

              • Describe the risk to transit organizations from human factors and human performance issues.

              Level 201: Advanced SMS Risk Management
              • Explain the purpose of Safety Risk Management in SMS.• Identify and lists weaknesses in the identification of hazards in recent transit accidents and incidents.

              • In FTA's SMS framework, detail when to perform a System Description and Task Analysis and explain how this analysis helps identify hazards.

              • Describe the elements of a System Description and Task Analysis, including the following steps:

              ○ Define the system and task(s) under analysis, including:

               Function and purpose of the system.

               The system's operating environment.

               An outline of the system's processes and procedures.

               The personnel, equipment, and facilities necessary for operation of the system.

              ○ Consider how the following attributes work within the system and task(s) under analysis to ensure its safe operation, including:

               Responsibility.

               Authority.

               Procedures and practices.

               Controls placed on equipment and personnel.

               Process measurements on tasks and activities.

               Interfaces among the hardware, software, people, and environment that make up the system.

              ○ Assess the system and task(s) under analysis for hazards and risks.

              • Describe how to document the identified hazards and risks, depending on the size of the public transportation agency and the complexity of its operations:

              ○ In a list, matrix or table.

              ○ Through a mapping process in flow charts (e.g., block flow diagram) or process maps (e.g., block flow procedural process map or a cross-functional process map).

              ○ In deductive or inductive system safety analyses.

              ○ Using computer models.

              ○ In other methods established by the public transportation agency.

              • Describe the steps needed to develop and maintain processes to analyze safety risk associated with the hazards identified in the system analyses.

              • Define a process for conducting risk assessment that allows for the determination of acceptable safety risk.

              • List potential processes to develop safety risk controls that are necessary as a result of the safety risk assessment process.

              • Explain how to evaluate whether the risk will be acceptable with a proposed safety risk control applied, before the safety risk control is implemented.

              • Discuss the pros and cons of mandatory employee reporting systems for hazard identification.

              Level 202: Advanced SMS Principles for Bus Transit
              • Describe ways in which the accountable executive should be committed to safety and use safety inputs in decision-making.• Summarize and list the safety responsibilities of key bus management personnel and committees.

              • List the major purpose of the SMS Manual and identify the key components for a bus agency.

              • Define typical SMS safety data/records management requirements for an SMS at a bus transit agency.

              • Characterize an effective safety assurance program in the bus transit environment.

              • List types of reactive safety issue identification (events, incidents, accidents).

              • Describe proactive safety issue identification approaches.

              • Compare and contrast different risk assessment methods used in the bus transit industry.

              • Demonstrate investigation and problem-solving skills.

              • Review corrective action planning & implementation practices.

              • Understand transit industry and agency risk profiles.

              • Demonstrate proficiency in the use of additional FTA-supplied materials, including SMS Guidebook and supporting forms.

              Level 300: SMS Risk Control Strategies
              • Explain why there is no such thing as “absolute safety” in public transportation, but that risks can be managed to a level “as low as reasonably practicable” (ALARP).• Demonstrate the ways in which risk mitigation and control must be balanced against: time, cost, and the difficulty of taking measures to reduce or eliminate the risk.

              • Describe how effective risk management seeks to maximize the benefits of accepting a risk (a reduction in time and cost) while minimizing the risk itself.

              • Communicate the rationale for risk decisions to gain acceptance by stakeholders affected by them.

              • Describe the three basic risk mitigation strategies.

              • Describe and list the steps in the “hierarchy of controls” for hazards.

              • Identify and discuss the relative merits of the “layers of protection” approach to controlling hazards.

              • Explain how to monitor and measure risk control performance levels.

              • Evaluate how data flow and analysis processes can support the assessment of the performance of risk control strategies.

              • Develop a monitoring plan for the implementation of risk control strategies at the transit agency.

              Level 301: SMS Assurance and Auditing Normal Operations and Risk Controls
              • Explain how safety assurance activities support the accountable executive and board of directors in making decisions and recommendations regarding resource allocation.• Demonstrate application of SMS tools and approaches in the investigation of accidents and incidents and the development and oversight of corrective action plans.

              • Detail the steps required to establish and manage mandatory and voluntary employee reporting systems.

              • Outline and discuss approaches to internal safety audits and surveys that support SMS performance monitoring.

              • Explain why SMS implementation must be coordinated quality assurance audits.

              • Discuss coordination required monitor normal operations using data management, mining and analysis at the transit agency.

              • Demonstrate capability to manage the conduct of safety reviews, examinations and audits and tracking of findings at rail transit agency.

              • Explain how safety certification for capital projects is managed in the SMS framework.

              • Propose performance measures and monitoring activities to oversee risk controls at rail transit agency.

              Alternative training available for:• Level 102: SMS Principles for Bus Transit
                • Level 202: Advanced SMS Principles for Bus Transit

              Alternative voluntary training may be developed by FTA in partnership with the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) for Executive Leadership and personnel with direct responsibility for safety at Section 5311 sub-recipients and personnel at State DOTs responsible for overseeing Section 5311 sub-recipients.

      [FR Doc. 2014-09778 Filed 4-29-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [CA 275-0378b; FRL-7460-7]
        Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District and Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) and the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The ICAPCD revision concerns the emission of particulate matter (PM-10) from agricultural burning. The MBUAPCD revision concerns the emission of PM-10 from incinerator burning. We are proposing to approve local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

          DATES:
          Any comments on this proposal must arrive by April 23, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
          You can inspect a copy of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see a copy of the (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
          You can inspect a copy of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see a copy of the submitted rule revisions and TSDs at the following locations:

            Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (Mail Code 6102T), Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
            California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
            Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA 94109.
            Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 8411 Jackson Road, Sacramento, CA 95826.
            San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726

          A copy of a rule may also be available via the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. This is not an EPA Web site and it may not contain the same version of the rule that was submitted to EPA. Readers should verify that the adoption date of the rule listed is the same as the rule submitted to EPA for approval and be aware that the official submittal is only available at the agency addresses listed above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 947-4118.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This proposal addresses the approval of local BAAQMD Rule 8-7, SMAQMD Rule 449, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4622. In the Rules section of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe this SIP revision is not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

          Dated: February 13, 2003.
          Alexis Strauss,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 03-6811 Filed 3-21-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P