        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0171; FF09E40000 167 FXES11150900000]
        RIN 1018-BB25
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revisions to the Regulations for Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances

          AGENCY:
          U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), propose changes to the regulations concerning enhancement of survival permits issued under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), associated with Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances. We propose to add the term “net conservation benefit” to the Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances regulations, and to eliminate references to “other necessary properties” to clarify the level of conservation effort we require each agreement to include in order for us to approve a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances. We are also proposing these changes to the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances policy in a separate document published in today's Federal Register.

          DATES:

          We will accept comments that we receive on or before July 5, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number for this proposed rule, which is FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0171. Then click on the Search button. In the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure that you have found the correct document before submitting your comment.
          • By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0171, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
          We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information section, below, for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jim Serfis, Chief, Branch of Conservation and Communications, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Through its Candidate Conservation program, one of the FWS's goals is to encourage the public to take specific conservation actions for declining species prior to them being listed under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The cumulative outcome of such conservation actions may result in not needing to list a species; or may result in listing a species as threatened instead of endangered, and provide the basis for the species' recovery and eventual removal from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The Service put in place a voluntary conservation program for non-Federal property owners to help accomplish this goal: Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs). On June 17, 1999, the policy for this type of agreement (64 FR 32726) and implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (64 FR 32706) were made final. On May 3, 2004, we published a final rule (69 FR 24084) to revise the CCAA regulations to make them easier to understand and implement by, among other things, defining “property owner” and by clarifying several points, including the transfer of permits, permit revocation, and advanced notification of take.

        To participate in a CCAA, non-Federal property owners agree to implement specific conservation actions on their land that reduce or eliminate threats to the species that are covered under the agreement. An ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of Survival permit is issued to the agreement participant providing a specific level of incidental take coverage should the property owner's agreed-upon conservation actions and routine property management actions (e.g., agricultural, ranching, or forestry activities) result in take of the covered species if listed. Property owners receive assurances that they will not be required to undertake any conservation actions other than those agreed to if new information indicates that additional or revised conservation measures are needed for the species, and they will not be subject to additional resource use or land use restrictions.
        Based on our experience reviewing and approving CCAAs over the past 16 years, we are proposing changes to the regulations that will clarify the level of conservation effort each agreement needs to include in order for FWS to approve an agreement and issue a permit.
        Purpose of Proposed Changes to Current Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32

        We are proposing changes to the CCAA regulations at 50 CFR 17.22(d) and 17.32(d) consistent with the proposed revisions to the CCAA policy published separately in today's Federal Register. The regulation changes are to (1) include the term “net conservation benefit” to clarify the level of conservation effort that is necessary in order to issue a permit associated with a CCAA and (2) eliminate references to “other necessary properties.”
        Under the current policy and regulations, to approve a CCAA we must “determine that the benefits of the conservation measures implemented by a property owner under a CCAA, when combined with those benefits that would be achieved if it is assumed that conservation measures were also to be implemented on other necessary properties, would preclude or remove any need to list the covered species.” The confusion created by the hypothetical concept of conservation measures needing to be implemented on “other necessary properties” is why we are clarifying and revising the CCAA standard to require a net conservation benefit to the covered species specifically on the property to be enrolled and eliminating references to “other necessary properties.”

        In concert with the proposed revisions to our CCAAs policy, published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, these changes to the regulations would help reassure landowners participating in CCAAs that additional conservation measures above and beyond those contained in the CCAA would not be required, and that additional land, water, or resource use restrictions would not be imposed upon them should a species that resides on their property become listed in the future.
        Request for Information

        Any final rule based on this proposal will consider information and recommendations submitted in a timely manner from all interested parties. We solicit comments, information, and recommendations from governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry groups, environmental interest groups, and any other interested parties on this proposed rule. All comments and materials we receive by the date listed in DATES, above, will be considered prior to the approval of a final rule.

        You may submit your information concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Information and supporting documentation that we receive in response to this proposed rule will be available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
        Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
        Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements. This proposed rule is consistent with Executive Order 13563, and in particular with the requirement of retrospective analysis of existing rules, designed “to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.”
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency, or his or her designee, certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We certify that, if adopted as proposed, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.

        The proposed rule would revise the regulations governing issuance of an enhancement of survival permit in conjunction with a CCAA to clarify but not change current practice and does not place any new requirements on any non-Federal property owner that may seek to apply for approval of a CCAA.
        Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)

        This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This proposed rule will not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State, local, or tribal governments; individuals; businesses; or organizations. OMB has reviewed and approved the application form that property owners use to apply for approval of a CCAA and associated enhancement of survival permit (Form 3-200-54) and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0094, which expires January 31, 2017. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.): (a) On the basis of information contained in the Regulatory Flexibility Act section above, this proposed rule would not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502, that this rule would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. As explained above, small governments would not be affected because the proposed rule would not place additional requirements on any city, county, or other local municipalities.
        (b) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This proposed rule would impose no obligations on State, local, or tribal governments.
        Takings (E.O. 12630)
        In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule would not have significant takings implications. This proposed rule would not pertain to “taking” of private property interests, nor would it directly affect private property. A takings implication assessment is not required because this proposed rule (1) would not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical invasion of property and (2) would not deny all economically beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This proposed rule would substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species) and would not present a barrier to all reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.
        Federalism (E.O. 13132)
        In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered whether this proposed rule would have significant Federalism effects and have determined that a federalism summary impact statement is not required. This proposed rule pertains only to approving enhancement of survival permits in conjunction with a CCAA under the ESA, and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
        Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
        This proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. This proposed rule would clarify the issuance criteria for an enhancement of survival permit associated with a CCAA under the ESA.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
        In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have considered possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have preliminarily determined that there are no potential adverse effects of issuing this proposed rule. Our intent is to provide clarity in regard to the net conservation benefit requirements for a CCAA to be approved, including any agreements in which Tribes may choose to participate. We will continue to keep our tribal obligations in mind as we finalize this proposed rule.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        We analyzed the proposed regulations in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(c)), the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the Department of the Interior's NEPA procedures (516 DM 2 and 8; 43 CFR part 46) and determined that the proposed regulations are categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements consistent with 40 CFR 1508.4 and 43 CFR 46.210(i). This categorical exclusion applies to policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are “of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” This action does not trigger an extraordinary circumstance, as outlined in 43 CFR 46.215, applicable to the categorical exclusion. Therefore, the proposed regulations do not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
        Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211)
        Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule, if made final, is not expected to affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Clarity of This Proposed Rule
        We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule or policy we publish must:
        (a) Be logically organized;
        (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
        (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
        (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
        (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

        If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the proposed rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
          Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

        Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter A of chapter IV, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

          PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

        1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:

          16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.

        2. Amend § 17.22 by revising paragraph (d)(8) to read as follows:

          § 17.22
          Permits for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or for incidental taking.

          (d) * * *
          (8) Duration of the Candidate Conservation Agreement. The duration of a Candidate Conservation Agreement covered by a permit issued under this paragraph (d) must be sufficient to achieve a net conservation benefit, which is defined as the cumulative benefits of specific conservation measures designed to improve the status of a covered species by removing or minimizing threats, stabilizing populations, and increasing its numbers and improving its habitat.
          (i) The benefit would be measured by the projected increase in the species' population or improvement of the species' habitat, taking into account the duration of the Agreement and any off-setting adverse effects attributable to the incidental taking allowed by the enhancement of survival permit.
          (ii) The conservation measures and management activities covered by the agreement must be designed to reduce or eliminate those current and future threats on the property that are under the property owner's control, in order to increase the species populations or improve its habitat.
          (iii) In the case where the species and habitat is already adequately managed to the benefit of the species, a net conservation benefit will be achieved when the property owner commits to manage the species for a specified period of time with the anticipation that the population will increase or habitat quality will improve.

        3. Amend § 17.32 by revising paragraph (d)(8) to read as follows:

          § 17.32
          Permits—general.

          (d) * * *
          (8) Duration of the Candidate Conservation Agreement. The duration of a Candidate Conservation Agreement covered by a permit issued under this paragraph (d) must be sufficient to achieve a net conservation benefit, which is defined as the cumulative benefits of specific conservation measures designed to improve the status of a covered species by removing or minimizing threats, stabilizing populations, and increasing its numbers and improving its habitat.
          (i) The benefit would be measured by the projected increase in the species' population or improvement of the species' habitat, taking into account the duration of the Agreement and any off-setting adverse effects attributable to the incidental taking allowed by the enhancement of survival permit.
          (ii) The conservation measures and management activities covered by the agreement must be designed to reduce or eliminate those current and future threats on the property that are under the property owner's control, in order to increase the species populations or improve its habitat.
          (iii) In the case where the species and habitat is already adequately managed to the benefit of the species, a net conservation benefit will be achieved when the property owner commits to manage the species for a specified period of time with the anticipation that the population will increase or habitat quality will improve.

          Dated: April 13, 2016.
          Noah Matson,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-10483 Filed 5-3-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
        49 CFR Part 1180
        [Docket No. EP 282 (Sub-No. 21)]
        Petition for Rulemaking—Railroad Consolidation Procedures—Exemption for Emergency Temporary Trackage Rights

          AGENCY:
          Surface Transportation Board.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Surface Transportation Board (Board) grants a petition filed by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish a new class exemption for emergency temporary trackage rights. The Board also proposes certain other related changes to the class exemptions for trackage rights and temporary trackage rights.

          DATES:
          Comments are due by July 12, 2021. Reply comments are due by August 11, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments and replies may be filed with the Board via e-filing and will be posted to the Board's website at www.stb.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nathaniel Bawcombe at (202) 245-0376. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On October 9, 2020, AAR filed a petition requesting that the Board initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish a new emergency temporary trackage rights class exemption that could be invoked in specific situations and would allow emergency temporary trackage rights to take effect immediately, without need for the 30-day notice requirement under 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(1). On November 4, 2020, Samuel J. Nasca, for and on behalf of SMART-Transportation Division-New York State Legislative Board (SMART/TD-NY), filed a reply in opposition to AAR's petition.
        On February 5, 2020, after considering the petition and reply, the Board granted AAR's petition to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish a new emergency temporary trackage rights class exemption. The rule proposed here, which is set forth below, differs in some respects from AAR's request, as explained below. The Board also proposes certain other related changes to the class exemptions for trackage rights and temporary trackage rights, also explained below.
        Background
        Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11323(a)(6), prior Board approval is required for a rail carrier to acquire trackage rights over a rail line owned or operated by another rail carrier. Under 49 U.S.C. 11324(d), the Board is required to approve trackage rights applications unless it finds that: (1) As a result of a transaction, there is likely to be substantial lessening of competition, creation of a monopoly, or restraint of trade in freight surface transportation in any region of the United States; and (2) the anticompetitive effects of the transaction outweigh the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs.
        Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board is directed, to the maximum extent consistent with 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV part A, to exempt a person, class of persons, or a transaction or service from regulation whenever it finds that: (1) Regulation is not necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy (RTP) of 49 U.S.C. 10101; and (2) either the transaction or service is of limited scope or regulation is not needed to protect shippers from an abuse of market power.
        The Board may exempt not only a single transaction but also an entire class of transactions that meets the exemption criteria of 49 U.S.C. 10502. A class exemption for transactions otherwise subject to Board licensing does not place those transactions beyond the Board's jurisdiction; rather, it is a means by which a carrier may obtain Board authorization without going through the otherwise-applicable full licensing process.1

            1 Exemptions may be revoked, in whole or in part, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(d).

        In 2003, the Board adopted a class exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8) for temporary overhead trackage rights of not more than one year in duration. See R.R. Consolidation Procs.—Exemption for Temp. Trackage Rts., EP 282 (Sub-No. 20) (STB served May 23, 2003), modified (STB served May 17, 2004). Under 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(1), exemptions sought under § 1180.2(d)(8) (and various other class exemptions under § 1180.2(d)) cannot become effective until at least 30 days after a railroad files a verified notice of the transaction. As a result, when a railroad seeks to have a temporary trackage rights exemption become effective in less than 30 days, the railroad must petition for waiver of the 30-day period. In such cases, in addition to serving and publishing the notice of the exemption in the Federal Register, the Board also issues a separate decision acting on the waiver request and setting the effective date of the exemption. See, e.g., Union Pac. R.R.—Temp. Trackage Rts. Exemption—BNSF Ry., FD 36424 et al. (STB served Aug. 10, 2020) (granting a waiver of the 30-day notice period for a trackage rights exemption under § 1180.2(d)(8) and setting effective date); Ala. & Gulf Coast Ry.—Temp. Trackage Rts. Exemption—Kan. City S. Ry., FD 36418 (STB served July 2, 2020) (same).

          AAR's Requested Exemption. AAR asks the Board to initiate a rulemaking to create a new emergency temporary trackage rights class exemption. Under AAR's request, the 30-day notice requirement under 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(1) would not apply to individual exemptions sought under the new exemption provision; the temporary trackage rights would take effect immediately upon publication of a notice of the transaction by the Board in the Federal Register, which, according to AAR, would take place within 5 days of a party's filing of a verified notice of exemption. (Pet., App. A at §§ 1180.2(d)(9), 1180.4(g)(5)(ii).) As requested by AAR, the temporary trackage rights could be requested for a period of no more than six months; however, the requestor could, prior to expiration of that period, seek a renewal for up to six additional months. (Id. at App. A at § 1180.2(d)(9).)

        Under AAR's request, to qualify for the new exemption, a rail carrier would be required to provide certain information regarding the transaction that is required for other notices of exemption under 49 CFR part 1180 and the trackage rights would have to be: (1) Based on written agreements; (2) not filed or sought in responsive applications in rail consolidation proceedings; (3) for overhead operations only; and (4) as certified by the rail carrier, sought in response to a track outage expected to last more than seven days and where there is no reasonable alternative for maintaining pre-outage service levels. (See id., App. A at §§ 1180.2(d)(9), 1180.4(g)(5)(i).) Every 30 days during the initial exemption period, the rail carrier would be required to recertify to the Board that the outage continues to exist and the temporary trackage rights continue to be necessary to maintain service. (Id., App. A at § 1180.2(d)(9).) AAR further requests that, as under the existing class exemption for temporary trackage rights, rail carriers availing themselves of the proposed class exemption would not need to file for discontinuance authority at the end of the authorized period, (Id., App. A at § 1180.2(d)(9)), and would be subject to applicable statutory labor protective conditions.2

            2 Specifically, the grant of the trackage rights would be subject to the employee protective conditions in Norfolk & Western Railway—Trackage Rights—Burlington Northern, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified by Mendocino Coast Railway—Lease & Operate—California Western Railroad, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980), and the discontinuance of operations would be subject to the employee protective conditions in Oregon Short Line Railroad—Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham & Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). (Pet. 4-5.)

        AAR argues that the current two-step approach for obtaining temporary trackage rights without having to wait 30 days for them to become effective is inefficient, and asserts that its proposed class exemption would benefit shippers, railroads, and the Board by providing a streamlined and simple approach for obtaining temporary trackage rights in emergency situations, ensuring the continued flow of commerce without any decrease in regulatory oversight. (Pet. 1-4.)

        As noted above, on November 4, 2020, SMART/TD-NY filed comments opposing AAR's petition. SMART/TD-NY argues that the Board should deny AAR's petition and decline to institute a rulemaking proceeding because an emergency temporary trackage rights exemption is unwarranted given the existing trackage rights exemptions and because the proposed exemption would threaten rail safety. (SMART/TD-NY Reply 3-4.) SMART/TD-NY states that detour arrangements in the railroad industry provide for pilot employees from the landlord carrier to provide guidance for the tenant carrier's operation in emergency situations. (Id. at 4.) According to SMART/TD-NY, the proposed exemption would allow for the “immediate cessation of detour operation[s]” or even the avoidance of detour operations altogether and thereby allow operation solely by tenant carrier personnel unfamiliar with the line over which the trackage rights have been granted. (Id.)
        The Statutory Exemption Criteria
        As noted above, 49 U.S.C. 10502 directs the Board to exempt a person, class of persons, or a transaction or service from regulation whenever it finds that: (1) Regulation is not necessary to carry out the RTP; and (2) either the transaction or service is of limited scope or regulation is not needed to protect shippers from an abuse of market power.

        The Board agrees that the current process for obtaining temporary trackage rights in emergency situations can be inefficient, and notes that petitions for waiver of the 30-day notice requirement are routinely granted. See, e.g.,
          Union Pac. R.R., FD 36424 et al., slip op. at 2 (granting a waiver of the 30-day notice period); Ala. & Gulf Coast Ry., FD 36418, slip op. at 2 (same). A class exemption for emergency temporary trackage rights, as proposed below, would meet the requirements of section 10502 and would advance the RTP in several ways. It would provide for the expeditious handling and resolution of proceedings, 49 U.S.C. 10101(15), and encourage the efficient management of railroads, 49 U.S.C. 10101(9), by making the process of obtaining temporary trackage rights in emergencies more efficient by eliminating the need for a waiver of the 30-day notice period under 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(1) and more predictable by requiring the Board to act within a set number of days. It would also promote the continuation of a sound rail system, 49 U.S.C. 10101(4), and coordination between carriers, 49 U.S.C. 10101(5), by facilitating the process of line repair and approval of trackage rights agreements.

        The class exemption proposed in this decision is limited in scope, in terms of both the duration of the rights and the circumstances in which the exemption would apply. Indeed, the proposed exemption is a more limited form—in terms of both duration and circumstances—of the existing temporary trackage rights exemption, which the Board in 2003 found to be of limited scope. See R.R. Consolidation Procs.—Exemption for Temp. Trackage Rts., 6 S.T.B. 910, 913 n.8 (2003).
        Regulation is not needed to protect shippers from an abuse of market power. The proposed class exemption would not reduce competition because the temporary trackage rights would be for overhead operations only, and therefore the competitive status quo would not be altered with respect to service to shippers on the affected lines. In addition, the exemption would benefit shippers by enhancing the ability of carriers to maintain service in emergency situations.

        SMART/TD-NY's arguments in opposition to the proceeding here are unpersuasive. The proposed class exemption is warranted because it would make the process of obtaining temporary trackage rights in an emergency more efficient and predictable. Moreover, based on the record to date, the Board does not see merit in SMART/TD-NY's claim that the proposed class exemption would threaten rail safety. This proposal would not alter or impact the existing rail safety operating regulations administered by the Federal Railroad Administration, which is the Federal agency with primary responsibility over rail safety matters. See, e.g., 49 CFR 240.229 (prohibiting a carrier in control of operations on a line from allowing an engineer of a foreign carrier to operate a train on that line without a pilot engineer from the controlling carrier unless the engineer of the foreign carrier has the necessary knowledge of the controlling carrier's operating rules and the necessary familiarity with the physical characteristics of the line).
        The Proposed Class Exemption
        For the reasons discussed above, and as set forth below, the Board proposes to establish a new class exemption for emergency temporary trackage rights. As explained further below, the Board's proposed rule differs in various respects from AAR's request and includes certain related changes to the existing class exemptions for trackage rights and temporary trackage rights.

          Circumstances in which the proposed rule would apply. AAR's requested new class exemption would apply where there is a track outage that is expected to last more than seven days and there is no reasonable alternative to maintain pre-outage levels of service. (Pet., App. A at § 1180.2(d)(9).) The Board finds that further clarification is needed to ensure that use of the class exemption would be restricted so that it applies only to emergency situations and not to situations where routine temporary trackage rights authority was not sought in a timely manner. Specifically, the Board proposes to require that the new exemption be available only for “unforeseen” track outages expected to last more than seven days and there is no reasonable alternative to maintain pre-outage levels of service. Examples of emergency situations that result in such unforeseen track outages include, but are not limited to, natural disasters and accidents or derailments. This clarification appears consistent with AAR's intent. (Pet. 1-3, 9 (describing the need for the exemption in cases of “unpredictable” or “unexpected” events such as accidents or natural disasters).) The Board also proposes a requirement that, when railroads certify that trackage rights are needed for an unforeseen track outage, the verified notice should provide a description of the situation that includes, to the extent possible, the following information:
        1. The nature of the event that caused the unforeseen outage;
        2. The location of the outage;
        3. The date that the emergency situation occurred;
        4. The date the track outage was discovered; and
        5. The expected duration of the outage.

          Duration of the exemption. AAR requests that the temporary trackage rights would be approved for an initial period of no longer than six months, with the option to request a renewal for an additional six months. The Board's proposal limits the emergency temporary trackage rights to an initial period not to exceed three months, with the option to request a renewal for an additional three months. A review of recent cases in which the Board waived the 30-day notice requirement for temporary trackage rights in emergency situations suggests that trackage rights would rarely be needed for a period longer than three months.3

            3 See, e.g.,
            Union Pac. R.R., FD 36424, slip op. at 2 (granting waiver of 30-day notice period for trackage rights agreement with a term of a little over one month); Ala. & Gulf Coast Ry, FD 36418, slip op. at 1 n.3 (granting waiver of 30-day notice period for trackage rights agreement with a term of just less than two months); Norfolk Southern Railway Company Petition for Waiver 3, Norfolk S. Ry.—Temp. Trackage Rts. Exemption—Kan. City S. Ry., FD 36359 (railroad anticipates that need for trackage rights operations would last for several weeks or months); Kan. City S. Ry.—Temp. Trackage Rts. Exemption—Norfolk S. Ry., FD 36314 et al., slip op. at 1-2 (STB served June 13, 2019) (providing notice of exemption for trackage rights agreement with a term of less than three months); Terminal Railway Alabama State Docks Verified Notice of Exemption at 2, Apr. 27, 2018, Terminal Ry. Ala. State Docks—Temp. Trackage Rts. Exemption—Norfolk S. Ry., FD 36190 (seeking exemption for trackage rights agreement with a term of six months but stating that trackage rights likely only needed for approximately one month).

          Certification every 30 days. AAR's request would require a rail carrier to certify every 30 days that the track outage continues to exist and that the temporary trackage rights continue to be necessary to maintain service. However, the Board's proposal would not require such certifications. Rather, the Board would only require that the carrier file a notice stating that the outage has been resolved and that trackage rights are no longer needed, as well as the date on which use of the trackage rights ceased, should the track outage be resolved and use of the trackage rights become unnecessary prior to the expiration of the exemption period. Any such notice should be filed within 5 business days of the date on which use of the trackage rights ceased. The Board finds that the reduction of the exemption period from six months to three months, combined with the requirement for parties to inform the Board if use of trackage rights has ceased prior to when the exemption period would have otherwise expired renders the 30-day certifications affirming the continued need for the trackage rights unnecessary.

          Effective date of the exemption. AAR requests that exemptions under the new provision become effective immediately upon publication of the Board's notice in the Federal Register, which would be required within five days after a verified notice of exemption is filed. However, due to requirements of the Federal Register publication process that are outside the Board's control, publication within five days may not be possible in certain situations. For that reason, the Board proposes that the exemption would become effective not upon publication in the Federal Register but rather upon service of the Board's notice, which would occur within five days of filing of the railroad's verified notice of exemption.4
           The Board's notice would be published in the Federal Register concurrently with service if possible, or as soon thereafter as practicable.

            4 Under § 1180.4(g), stay petitions for notices filed under § 1180.2(d) must be filed at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective. The Board proposes to specify that, for notices filed under § 1180.2(d)(9), stay petitions be filed as soon as possible before the exemption becomes effective. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d), petitions to revoke the exemption can be filed at any time.

          Caption summary. Under AAR's request, parties seeking an exemption under the new § 1180.2(d)(9) would include in its verified notice a caption summary suitable for publication in the Federal Register containing certain information regarding the proposed transaction.5

           This requirement mirrors the requirement of a caption summary for exemptions sought under § 1180.2(d)(7) and (d)(8). Originally, the purpose of this requirement was to facilitate Federal Register publication by providing the Board with a document that could be published as the Board's notice.6
           However, in practice, caption summaries have not routinely been used for that purpose. Accordingly, the Board proposes not to require a caption summary for exemptions under § 1180.2(d)(9) and to eliminate the existing caption summary requirements for exemptions under § 1180.2(d)(7) and § 1180.2(d)(8). Pursuant to the Board's proposal, the caption summary requirements would be replaced by a requirement that the parties provide in their notices the same information currently required in caption summaries.

            5 AAR requests to include the caption summary and other requirements under new § 1180.4(g)(5). Many of the requirements in new proposed § 1180.4(g)(5) are duplicative of requirements already contained in § 1180.4(g)(1), which is applicable to all exemptions under § 1180.2(d), including the new proposed § 1180.2(d)(9). Rather than proposing a new § 1180.4(g)(5), as suggested by AAR, the Board proposes to incorporate the requirements of this § into the existing § 1180.4(g)(1) to the extent they are not already contained therein.

            6 The caption summary regulations originally indicated that caption summaries themselves would be published in the Federal Register. R.R. Consolidation Procs.—Exemption for Temp. Trackage Rts., EP 282 (Sub-No. 20), slip op. at 9 (STB served May 23, 2003); R.R. Consolidation Procs.—Trackage Rts. Exemption, 1 I.C.C. 270, 283 (1985). See also 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(2)(i) and (ii) (requiring caption summaries to be “suitable for publication in the Federal Register”).

          Certification regarding interchange commitments. Under § 1180.4(g)(4), parties seeking Board approval for transactions under 49 CFR part 1180 must certify “whether or not a proposed acquisition or operation of a rail line involves a provision or agreement that may limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier, whether by outright prohibition, per-car penalty, adjustment in the purchase price or rental, positive economic inducement, or other means.” On its face, this provision could be read to require such a certification in connection with the emergency temporary trackage rights exemption proposed here.7

            7 AAR's request does not address the issue of certification of interchange commitments.

        The Board adopted the interchange commitment certification requirement in Information Required in Notices & Petitions Containing Interchange Commitments, EP 714 (STB served Sept. 5, 2013). In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in that proceeding, the Board did not specifically address the applicability of the interchange certification to trackage rights transactions, though it did cite one previous trackage rights exemption proceeding. Info. Required in Notices & Pets. Containing Interchange Commitments, EP 714, slip op. at 4-5, nn.17, 18, 20 (STB served Nov. 1, 2012) (citing Jackson & Lansing R.R.—Trackage Rts. Exemption—Norfolk S. Ry., FD 35418 et al. (STB served Sept. 27, 2011)).8

            8 The Jackson & Lansing decision, which embraced three separate proceedings, addressed issues related to an interchange commitment disclosed as part of a lease transaction, not the trackage rights transaction. Further, that decision in several instances referred to interchange commitments being part of lease and sale transactions. Jackson & Lansing, FD 35418 et al., slip op. at 6, 7 n.23, 8.

        Nor did the final rule in Docket No. EP 714 specifically address the applicability of the interchange commitment certification to railroads obtaining trackage rights. The NPRM refers only to the interchange commitment certification requirement applying to a “purchaser” or “lessee” railroad. Info. Required in Notices & Pets. Containing Interchange Commitments, EP 714, slip op. at 4-6 (STB served Nov 1, 2012). Further, the Board has generally interpreted this requirement as not applying to trackage rights agreements under § 1180.2(d)(7) 9
           or § 1180.2(d)(8).10

            9 See, e.g.,
            Grand Trunk W. R.R.—Trackage Rts. Exemption—Norfolk S. Ry., FD 36267 (STB served May 16, 2019); Ind. Rail Road—Trackage Rts. Exemption—CSX Transp., Inc., FD 36068 (STB served Oct. 14, 2016); Ind. Rail Road—Amended Trackage Rts. Exemption—CSX Transp., Inc., FD 35283 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Apr. 28, 2017).

            10 See, e.g.,
            Ala. & Gulf Coast Ry.—Temp. Trackage Rts. Exemption—Kan. Cty. S. Ry., FD 36418; Union Pac. R.R.—Temp. Trackage Rts. Exemption—Kan. Cty. S. Ry., FD 36135 (STB served July 26, 2017); Allegheny Valley R.R.—Temp. Trackage Rts. Exemption—Norfolk S. Ry., FD 36015 (STB served May 6, 2016).

        Therefore, the Board proposes to clarify that § 1180.4(g)(4) would not apply to transactions under the proposed new § 1180.2(d)(9). In addition, the Board proposes to clarify that § 1180.4(g)(4) also does not apply to trackage rights transactions under § 1180.2(d)(7) or § 1180.2(d)(8), an issue that has been the cause of some confusion among parties in the past.

          Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the analysis available for public comment. Sections 601-604. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency must either include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, section 603(a), or certify that the proposed rule would not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities,” section 605(b). Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce the cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates those entities. In other words, the impact must be a direct impact on small entities “whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated” by the proposed rule. White Eagle Coop. v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 480 (7th Cir. 2009).

        The Board's proposed changes to its regulations here are intended to make the process of obtaining Board approval of temporary trackage agreements in emergency situations more efficient and predictable and do not mandate the conduct of small entities. For the purpose of RFA analysis for rail carriers subject to the Board's jurisdiction, the Board defines a “small business” as only including those rail carriers classified as Class III rail carriers under 49 CFR 1201.1-1. See Small Entity Size Standards Under the Regul. Flexibility Act, EP 719 (STB served June 30, 2016) (with Board Member Begeman dissenting).11
           Currently, if small entities wish to receive temporary trackage rights in emergency situations, they must file for a notice of exemption in addition to filing a petition for waiver. The proposed rule, if promulgated, provides a more expedited procedural mechanism for carriers to quickly obtain approval for trackage rights in emergency situations without having to obtain a waiver of the 30-day notice period under § 1180.4(g)(1). The regulations require the carrier utilizing the trackage rights to file a notice if the carrier ceases to use the trackage rights prior to when the exemption period would have otherwise expired. However, because such notices would consist of a brief statement that use of the trackage rights has ceased and the date on which use of the trackage rights ceased, the Board does not believe that the burden associated with these notices would outweigh the reduction in burden associated with eliminating the requirement to file a petition for waiver of the 30-day notice period under § 1180.4(g)(1). The Board, therefore, expects the impact of the proposed rule would slightly reduce the paperwork burden for small entities. Accordingly, the economic impact of the proposed rule, if any, would be minimal as the burdens associated with obtaining approval of temporary trackage rights agreements in emergencies would be slightly reduced and the rule would likely provide some economic benefit by expediting, in some cases, the process of approving trackage rights agreements necessary to restore service at pre-outage levels. Therefore, the Board certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that these proposed rules, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA. This decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Offices of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.

            11 Class III carriers have annual operating revenues of $20 million or less in 1991 dollars or $40,384,263 or less when adjusted for inflation using 2019 data. Class II rail carriers have annual operating revenues of less than $250 million or $504,803,294 when adjusted for inflation using 2019 data. The Board calculates the revenue deflator factor annually and publishes the railroad revenue thresholds on its website. 49 CFR 1201.1-1; Indexing the Annual Operating Revenues of R.Rs., EP 748 (STB served June 10, 2020).

          Paperwork Reduction Act. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3), and in the Appendix, the Board seeks comments about the impact of the revisions in the proposed rule to the currently approved collection of Statutory Licensing Authority (OMB Control Number: 2140-0023), concerning: (1) Whether the collection of information, as modified or added in the proposed rule, and further described below, is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate.

        The Board estimates that the proposed requirements would save a total hourly burden of 54 hours per year as compared to the current procedures for obtaining emergency temporary trackage rights involving the filing of verified notice of exemption and a petition for waiver of the 30-day notice period. The new emergency temporary trackage rights notice would incorporate additional language, resulting in approximately 5% more burden hours to prepare than the average notice of exemption, and it is estimated that two notices regarding the cessation of trackage rights would be filed annually. There are no changes to the estimated non-hourly burdens associated with this collection. The Board welcomes comment on the estimates of actual time and costs of the collection of the proposed emergency trackage rights notices of exemptions, as detailed below in the Appendix. Other information pertinent to this collection is also included in the Appendix. The proposed rule will be submitted to OMB for review as required under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. Comments received by the Board regarding these information collections will also be forwarded to OMB for its review when the final rule is published.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1180
          Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          It is ordered:
        1. Comments are due by July 12, 2021. Reply comments are due by August 11, 2021.
        2. Notice of this decision will be published in the Federal Register.
        3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
        4. This decision is effective on its service date.

          Decided: May 28, 2021.

          By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.
          Jeffrey Herzig,
          Clearance Clerk.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend part 1180 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 1180—RAILROAD ACQUISITION, CONTROL, MERGER, CONSOLIDATION PROJECT, TRACKAGE RIGHTS, AND LEASE PROCEDURES

        1. The authority citation for part 1180 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 11 U.S.C. 1172; 49 U.S.C. 1321, 10502, 11323-11325.

        2. Amend § 1180.2 as follows:
        a. Revise the first sentence of paragraph (d) introductory text;
        b. In paragraph (d)(8)(iv), remove the words “49 CFR 1180.4(g)(2)(iii)” and add in their place the words “49 CFR 1180.4(g)(1)(ii)”, and remove the words “these rules” and add in their place the words “this paragraph (d)(8)”;
        c. Add paragraph (d)(9).

          § 1180.2
          Types of transactions.

          (d) A transaction is exempt if it is within one of the nine categories described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (9). * * *

          (9)(i) Acquisition of emergency temporary trackage rights by a rail carrier over lines owned or operated by any other rail carrier or carriers that are:
          (A) Based on written agreements,
          (B) Not filed or sought in responsive applications in rail consolidation proceedings,
          (C) For overhead operations only,
          (D) Scheduled to expire on a specific date not to exceed three months from the effective date of the exemption, and
          (E) Sought in response to an unforeseen track outage and expected to last more than seven days where there is no reasonable alternative to maintain pre-outage levels of service.
          (ii) If during the exemption period, the outage is resolved and use of the temporary emergency trackage rights ceases to be necessary to maintain service at pre-outage levels, the rail carrier must file a notice stating that the outage has been resolved and that use of the trackage rights has ceased and identifying the date on which use of the trackage rights ceased. Such a notice should be filed within 5 business days of the date on which use of the trackage rights ceased. The emergency temporary trackage rights authority expires upon the official filing date of the notice. If the operations contemplated by the exemption will not be concluded within the initial exemption period, the rail carrier may, prior to expiration of the period, file a request for a renewal of the temporary rights for an additional period of up to 3 months, including the reason(s) therefor. Rail carriers acquiring temporary trackage rights need not seek authority from the Board to discontinue the trackage rights as of the expiration date specified under § 1180.4(g)(1)(ii). All transactions under this paragraph (d)(9) will be subject to applicable statutory labor protective conditions.

        3. Amend § 1180.4 as follows:
        a. Revise paragraph (g)(1);
        b. Remove paragraph (g)(2);
        c. Redesignate paragraphs (g)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (g)(2) and (3);
        d. Revise newly redesignated (g)(2); and
        e. Amend newly redesignated (g)(3) by
        i. Removing the paragraph heading “Transactions imposing interchange commitments”;

        ii. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (g)(3)(i).
        The revisions read as follows:

          § 1180.4
           Procedures.

          (g) Notice of exemption. (1) To qualify for an exemption under § 1180.2(d), a railroad must file a verified notice of the transaction with the Board. Except for verified notices filed under § 1180.2(d)(9), all verified notices under § 1180.2(d) must be filed at least 30 days before the transaction is consummated, indicating the proposed consummation date. Verified notices filed under § 1180.2(d)(9) will become effective upon service of notice of the transaction by the Board. Before a verified notice is filed, the railroad shall obtain a docket number from the Board's Section of Administration, Office of Proceedings.
          (i) All notices filed under § 1180.2(d) shall contain the information required in § 1180.6(a)(1)(i)-(iii), (a)(5)-(6), and (a)(7)(ii), and indicate the level of labor protection to be imposed.
          (ii) Notices filed under §§ 1180.2(d)(7), 1180.2(d)(8), or 1180.2(d)(9) shall also contain the following information:
          (A) The name of the tenant railroad;
          (B) The name of the landlord railroad;
          (C) A description of the trackage rights, including a description of the track. For notices under § 1180.2(d)(8) and (9), the notice must state that the trackage rights are overhead rights. For notices under § 1180.2(d)(7), the notice must state whether the trackage rights are local or overhead;
          (D) The date the trackage rights transaction is proposed to be consummated;
          (E) The date temporary trackage rights will expire, if applicable; and
          (F) For notices under § 1180.2(d)(9), a description of the situation resulting in the outage in sufficient detail to allow the Board to determine an emergency exits, including, to the extent possible, the nature of the event that caused the unforeseen outage, the location of the outage, the date that the emergency situation occurred, the date the outage was discovered, and the expected duration of the outage.

          (iii) Except for notices filed under § 1180.2(d)(9), the Board shall publish a notice of exemption in the Federal Register within 16 days of the filing of the notice. For notices filed under § 1180.2(d)(9), the Board shall serve a notice of exemption on parties of record within 5 days after the verified notice of exemption is filed and shall publish that notice in the Federal Register. The publication of notices under § 1180.2(d) will indicate the labor protection required.
          (iv) If the notice contains false or misleading information that is brought to the Board's attention, the Board shall summarily revoke the exemption for that carrier and require divestiture.
          (v) The filing of a petition to revoke under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) does not stay the effectiveness of an exemption. Except for notices filed under § 1180.2(d)(9), stay petitions must be filed at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective. For notices filed under § 1180.2(d)(9), stay petitions should be filed as soon as possible before the exemption becomes effective.
          (vi) Other exemptions that may be relevant to a proposal under this provision are codified at 49 CFR part 1150, subpart D, which governs transactions under 49 U.S.C. 10901.

          (3)(i) Except for notices filed under § 1180.2(d)(7), (8), or (9), the filing party must certify whether a proposed acquisition or operation of a rail line involves a provision or agreement that may limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier, whether by outright prohibition, per-car penalty, adjustment in the purchase price or rental, positive economic inducement, or other means (“interchange commitment”). * * *

            Note:
             The following will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

          Appendix

            Information Collected Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
            As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, the Surface Transportation Board (Board) gives notice that it is requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the revision and extension of the currently approved information collection, Statutory Licensing Authority (OMB Control Number: 2140-0023), as described below. The requested revision to the existing, approved collection by this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is expected to (1) provide parties with an emergency temporary trackage rights exemption (to replace the need for submitting both a notice of exemption and a separate petition for waiver) and (2) in the event that the use of the temporary emergency trackage rights ceases to be necessary during the exemption period, require a short notice stating such.
            Description of Collection

              Title: Statutory Licensing Authority.

              OMB Control Number: 2140-0023.

              STB Form Number: None.

              Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

              Respondents: Rail carriers and non-carriers seeking statutory licensing or consolidation authority or an exemption from filing an application for such authority (including, in some circumstances, a certification regarding whether the transaction at issue imposes interchange commitments).

              Number of Respondents: 80.

              Total Burden Hours (annually including all respondents): 4,203 (sum of estimated hours per response × number of responses for each type of filing, including the increase and decrease in burdens under the NPRM). The tables below show the burden impact of the NPRM, including the (a) current estimates for the existing collection, (b) reduction in estimates due to the NPRM, and (c) increase in estimates due to the NPRM.
            As provided in Table 1—Estimated Average Number of Responses below, the Board maintains its existing, approved collection of three applications, 12 petitions for exemption, 103 notices of exemption, and four certifications regarding interchange commitments annually based on an actual three-year average (FY 2018-2020) of filings. Table 1 also shows the expected decrease and increase in filings under the NPRM. Similarly, Table 2—Estimated Number of Hours per Response shows both the existing estimated burden hours for each existing response and provides the estimated burdens for the increase and decrease of responses under the NPRM. When multiplied by the number of hours for each type of filing, as provided in Table 2, the estimated annual burden hours for 122 responses are 4,203 hours (sum of estimated hours per response × number of responses for each type of filing), as shown in Table 3—Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours.

              Frequency: On occasion.

              Table 1—Estimated Average Number of Responses

                Type of filing
                Average number of filings per year

                Existing filings:

                Applications
                3

                Petitions
                12

                Notices
                103

                Interchange commitments certifications
                4

                Reductions in filings—Proposed:

                Notices (previously used)
                (2)

                Petitions for waiver (no longer necessary)
                (2)

                Additions in filings—Proposed:

                New Notices (emergency trackage rights exemptions)
                2

                New notices regarding cessation of trackage rights
                2

                Total estimated filings
                122

              Table 2—Estimated Number of Hours per Response

                Type of filing
                Number of hours per response

                Existing filings:

                Applications
                524

                Petitions
                58

                Notices
                19

                Interchange commitments certifications
                8

                Reductions in filings—Proposed:

                Notices (previously used)
                (19)

                Petitions for waiver (no longer necessary)
                (29)

                Additions in filings—Proposed:

                New Notices (emergency trackage rights exemptions)
                20

                New notices regarding cessation of trackage rights
                1

              Table 3—Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours

                Type of filing
                Hours per response

                Annual number of filings
                Total annual burden hours

                Existing filing:

                Applications
                524
                3
                1,572

                Petitions
                58
                12
                696

                Notices
                19
                103
                1,957

                Interchange commitments
                8
                4
                32

                Total Existing Annual Burden Hours

                4,257

                Reductions in filings—Proposed:

                Notices (previously used)
                (19)
                2
                (38)

                Petitions for waiver (no longer necessary)
                (29)
                2
                (58)

                Additions in filings—Proposed:

                New Notices (emergency trackage rights exemptions)
                20
                2
                40

                New notices regarding cessation of trackage rights
                1
                2
                2

                Total new annual burden hours

                4,203

              Total “Non-hour Burden” Cost: Because Board collections are submitted electronically to the Board, there is no cost for filing with the Board. However, for some filings, respondents may be required to send consultation letters to various other governmental agencies. Copies of these letters are part of an environmental and historic report that must be filed with this collection (unless waived by the Board). Because some of these other agencies may require hard copy letters, there may be some limited mailing costs, which staff estimates in total to be approximately $1,750.

              Needs and Uses: As mandated by Congress, persons seeking to construct, acquire, or operate a line of railroad and railroads seeking to abandon or to discontinue operations over a line of railroad or, in the case of two or more railroads, to consolidate their interests through merger or a common-control arrangement are required to file an application for prior approval and authority with the Board. See 49 U.S.C. 10901-03, 11323-26. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, persons may seek an exemption from many of the application requirements of §§ 10901-03 and §§ 11323-26 by filing with the Board a petition for exemption or notice of exemption in lieu of an application. The collection by the Board of these applications, petitions, and notices (including collection of disclosures of rail interchange commitments under 49 CFR 1121.3(d), 1150.33(h), 1150.43(h), and 1180.4(g)(4)) enables the Board to meet its statutory duty to regulate the referenced rail transactions. In cases in which the requests for authority involve agreements with interchange commitments that may limit the future interchange of traffic with third parties, certain information must be disclosed to the Board about those commitments. 49 CFR 1121.3(d), 1150.33(h), 1150.43(h), 1180.4(g)(4). The collection of this information facilitates the case-specific review of interchange commitments and enables the Board's monitoring of their usage generally.

      [FR Doc. 2021-11889 Filed 6-4-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Parts 20 and 21
        RIN 1018-A107
        Migratory Bird Hunting and Permits; Regulations for Managing Harvest of Light Goose Populations; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:
          On October 12, 2001 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a proposal to authorize new regulations to increase harvest of overabundant light goose populations (greater and lesser snow geese and Ross' geese). Such regulations are proposed for States in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways. This correction adds New Jersey to the list of Atlantic Flyway States being proposed for eligibility for such regulations.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received by December 14, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          1. Comments should be mailed to Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, ms 634—ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. Alternatively, comments may be submitted electronically to the following address: white_goose_eis@fws.gov.
          2. The public may inspect comments during normal business hours in Room 634—Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
          3. You may obtain copies of the draft environmental impact statement from the above address, or by downloading it from our web site at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/snowgse/tblcont.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jon Andrew, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358-1714; or James Kelley (612) 713-5409.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On October 5, 2001 (66 FR 51274) we notified the public of the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on light goose management. The DEIS analyzes several alternatives for addressing habitat degradation associated with overabundant light goose populations. On October 12, 2001 (66 FR 52077) we published a proposed rule to authorize new regulations that would increase harvest of certain light goose populations in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways. The proposal corresponds to our preferred alternative identified in the DEIS. We inadvertently omitted New Jersey from the list of States that are proposed as being eligible to implement special light goose regulations. This correction adds New Jersey to the list of eligible States.
        Correction
        Accordingly, making the following corrections to FR Doc. 01-25612 published at 66 FR 52077 on October 12, 2001:
        1. On page 52088 in columns two and three, correct paragraphs § 20.21 (b) and (g) to read as follows:

          § 20.21
          What hunting methods are illegal?

          (b) With a shotgun of any description capable of holding more than three shells, unless it is plugged with a one-piece filler, incapable of removal without disassembling the gun, so its total capacity does not exceed three shells. This restriction does not apply during a light-goose-only season (greater and lesser snow geese and Ross' geese) when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed while hunting light geese in Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

          (g) By the use or aid of recorded or electrically amplified bird calls or sounds, or recorded or electrically amplified imitations of bird calls or sounds. This restriction does not apply during a light-goose-only season (greater and lesser snow geese and Ross' geese) when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed while hunting light geese in Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

          2. On page 52089 in column one, correct paragraph § 21.60(c)(1) to read as follows:

          § 21.60
          Conservation order for light geese.

          (c) * * *
          (1) The following States, or portions of States, that are contained within the boundaries of the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

          Dated: October 31, 2001.
          Joseph E. Doddridge,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 01-27940  Filed 11-6-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-M


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 04-910; MB Docket No. 04-97, RM-10897, RM-10898; MB Docket No. 04-98, RM-10899; MB Docket No. 04-99, RM-10900; MB Docket No. 04-100, RM-10901; MB Docket No. 04-101, RM-10902, RM-10903; MB Docket No. 04-102, RM-10904, RM-10905, RM-10906; MB Docket No. 04-103, RM-10907; MB Docket No. 04-104, RM-10908, MB Docket No. 04-105, RM-10909, RM-10910, RM-10911; MB Docket No. 04-106, RM-10912; MB Docket No. 04-107, RM-10913, RM-10914; MB Docket No. 04-108, RM-10915, RM-10916, RM-10917, RM-10918; MB Docket No. 04-109, RM-10919; MB Docket No. 04-110, RM-10920, RM-10921, RM-10922]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Canton, IL, Cedarville, IL, Council Grove, KS, Clifton, IL, Farmersburg, IN, Freeport, IL, Fowler, IN, Golden Meadow, LA, Homer, LA, Madison, IN, Pinckneyville, IL, Ringgold, LA, Smith Mills, KY and Terre Haute, IN

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document sets forth 14 reservation proposals requesting to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reserving certain vacant FM allotments for noncommercial educational use in Canton, Illinois, Cedarville, Illinois, Council Grove, Kansas, Clifton, Illinois, Farmersburg, Indiana, Freeport, Illinois, Fowler, Indiana, Golden Meadow, Louisiana, Homer, Louisiana, Madison, Indiana, Pinckneyville, Illinois, Terre Haute, Indiana, Ringgold, Louisiana and Smith Mills, Kentucky. The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Illinois State University and Starboard Media Foundation, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 277A at Canton, Illinois for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *277A at Canton are 40-28-27 North Latitude and 90-3-1 West Longitude. The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by The Catholic Diocese of Rockford proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 258A at Cedarville, Illinois. The reference coordinates for Channel *258A at Cedarville are 42-21-50 North Latitude and 89-40-59 West Longitude. See
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, infra.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before May 27, 2004, and reply comments on or before June 11, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as follows: Todd D. Gray, Esq., Margaret L. Miller, Esq. and Barry S. Persh, Esq., c/o Illinois State University, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036; Mark Follett, Starboard Media Foundation, Inc., 2300 Riverside Drive, Green Bay, WI 54301; Dennis J. Kelly, Esq., c/o The Catholic Diocese of Rockford, Law Office of Dennis J. Kelly, Post Office Box 41177, Washington, DC 20018; James Miller, Miller Media, 115 Bobbie Drive, Swansea, IL 62226; Patrick J. Vaughn, General Counsel, American Family Association, Post Office Drawer 2440, Tupelo, MS 38803; Mark N. Lipp, Esq., c/o Word Power, Inc., Vinson & Elkins, LLP, The Willard Office Building, 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004-1008; Harry C. Martin, Esq. and Lee G. Petro, Esq., c/o Living Proof, Inc, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth PLC, 1300 North 17th Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA 22209; William D. Wallace, Esq., c/o The Trustees of Indiana University, Crowell & Moring LLP, 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004; Russell C. Powell, Esq., c/o Great Plains Christian Radio, Inc, Taylor & Powell, LLP, 908 King Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314; Joseph C. Chautin, III, Esq., c/o Providence Educational Foundation, Hardy, Carey & Chautin, L.L.P., 110 Veterans Blvd., Suite 300, Metairie, Louisiana 70005; David A. O'Connor, Esq., c/o Calvary of New Orleans, Holland & Knight LLP, 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20006; David A. O'Connor, Esq., c/o Southern Cultural Outreach Association, Inc., Holland & Knight LLP, 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20006.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket Nos. 04-97, 04-98, 04-99, 04-100, 04-101, 04-102, 04-103, 04-104, 04-105, 04-106, 04-107, 04-108, 04-109, 04-110 adopted April 2, 2004, and released April 5, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Starboard Media Foundation, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 297A at Clifton, Illinois, vacant Channel 295A at Freeport, Illinois, and vacant Channel 291A at Fowler, Indiana for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *297A at Clifton are 40-52-0 North Latitude and 87-58-0 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *295A at Freeport are 42-19-28 North Latitude and 89-35-13 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *291A at Fowler are 40-38-5 North Latitude and 87-18-46 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Starboard Media Foundation and Miller Media proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 282A at Pinckneyville, Illinois for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *282A at Pinckneyville are 38-5-30 North Latitude and 89-22-46 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by American Family Association, Starboard Media Foundation, Inc. and Word Power, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 242A at Farmersburg, Indiana for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *242A at Farmersburg are 39-15-18 North Latitude and 87-23-0 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by American Family Association proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 266A at Madison, Indiana and vacant Channel 272A at Homer, Louisiana for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *266A at Madison are 38-49-15 North Latitude and 85-18-46 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *272A at Homer are 32-42-41 North Latitude and 92-56-35 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Living Proof, Inc., Word Power, Inc and The Trustees of Indiana University proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 298B at Terre Haute for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *298B at Terre Haute are 39-30-14 North Latitude and 87-26-37 West Longitude.

        The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Great Plains Christian Radio, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 281C3 at Council Grove, Kansas for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *281C3 at Council Grove are 38-39-42 North Latitude and 96-29-18 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by American Family Association and Starboard Media Foundation, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 233A at Smith Mills, Kentucky for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *233A at Smith Mills are 37-47-26 North Latitude and 87-55-23 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by American Family Association Starboard Media Foundation, Inc., Providence Educational Foundation and Calvary of New Orleans proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 289C2 at Golden Meadow, Louisiana for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *289C2 at Golden Meadow are 29-14-0 North Latitude and 90-15-0 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by American Family Association, Starboard Media Foundation, Inc. and Southern Cultural Outreach Association, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 253C3 at Ringgold, Louisiana for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *253C3 at Ringgold are 32-19-49 North Latitude and 93-12-33 West Longitude.
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contact.

        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Illinois, is amended by adding Channel *277A and by removing Channel 277A at Canton; by adding Channel *258A and by removing Channel 258A at Cedarville; by adding Channel *297A and by removing Channel 297A at Clifton; and by adding Channel *295A and by removing Channel 295A at Freeport; and by adding Channel *282A and by removing Channel 282A at Pinckneyville.
            3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Indiana, is amended by adding Channel *242A and by removing Channel 242A at Farmersburg; by adding Channel *291A and by removing Channel 291A at Fowler; by adding Channel *266A and by removing Channel 266A at Madison; and by adding Channel *298B and by removing Channel 298B at Terre Haute.
            4. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Kansas, is amended by adding Channel *281C3 and by removing Channel 281C3 at Council Grove.
            5. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Kentucky, is amended by adding Channel *233A and by removing Channel 233A at Smith Mills.
            6. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Louisiana, is amended by adding Channel *289C2 and by removing Channel 289C2 at Golden Meadow; by adding Channel *272A and by removing Channel 272A at Homer; and by adding Channel *253C3 and by removing Channel 253C3 at Ringgold.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Peter H. Doyle,
            Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 04-9641 Filed 4-27-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P