        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Railroad Administration
        49 CFR Part 243
        [Docket No. FRA-2019-0095, Notice No. 1]
        RIN 2130-AC86
        Training, Qualification, and Oversight for Safety-Related Railroad Employees

          AGENCY:
          Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          In response to a petition for rulemaking, FRA proposes amending its regulation on Training, Qualification, and Oversight for Safety-Related Railroad Employees by delaying the regulation's implementation dates for all contractors, and those Class II and III railroads that are not intercity or commuter passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by December 23, 2019. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send comments, identified by docket number FRA-2019-0095 and RIN 2130-AC86, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments;
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590;
          • Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, located in Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number (Federal Railroad Administration, FRA-2019-0095) or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking (2130-AC86). All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov; this includes any personal information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act information related to any submitted comments or materials.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, petitions for reconsideration, or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or visit the Docket Management Facility described above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Robert J. Castiglione, Staff Director -Human Performance Division, Federal Railroad Administration, 4100 International Plaza, Suite 450, Fort Worth, TX 76109-4820 (telephone: 817-447-2715); or Alan H. Nagler, Senior Attorney, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6038).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On November 7, 2014, FRA published a final rule (2014 Final Rule) that established minimum training standards for each category and subcategory of safety-related railroad employees and required railroad carriers, contractors, and subcontractors to submit training programs to FRA for approval. See 79 FR 66459. The 2014 Final Rule was required by section 401(a) of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4883 (Oct. 16, 2008), codified at 49 U.S.C. 20162. The Secretary of Transportation delegated the authority to conduct this rulemaking and implement the rule to the Federal Railroad Administrator. 49 CFR 1.89(b).
        On May 3, 2017, FRA delayed implementation dates in the 2014 Final Rule by one year. On April 27, 2018, FRA responded to a petition for reconsideration of that May 2017 rule by granting the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association's (ASLRRA) request to delay the implementation dates by an additional year.
        Petition for Rulemaking
        On June 27 and July 12, 2019, ASLRRA and the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association, Inc. (NRC) (collectively Associations) filed petitions for rulemaking that were docketed in the U.S. DOT's Docket Management System as FRA-2019-0050. In the June 27, 2019 petition, ASLRRA and NRC request that FRA make several substantive changes to the part 243 regulation. In that petition, ASLRRA and NRC assert that as the regulation currently exists, it presents short line and regional railroads and contractors with “substantial and unnecessary regulatory burdens” and therefore additional regulatory flexibility should be afforded to short line and regional railroads and contractors. In the July 12, 2019 petition ASLRRA and NRC request that FRA initiate a rulemaking to delay the implementation dates in part 243 as applicable to Class II and III railroads and contractors for two years while FRA considers its June 27, 2019 petition. In the alternative, ASLRRA and NRC ask that FRA suspend the current implementation dates as applied to Class II and III railroads and contractors.
        ASLRRA and NRC take the position that even though some of their members are not small entities by FRA's definition of fewer than 400,000 total employee work hours annually, these other entities will likely implement model programs in the same way as the small entities, rather than develop their own programs as is expected for Class I railroads. In the June 27, 2019 petition, the Associations state that Class II regional railroads are more like Class III shortlines in terms of structure, resources, and operations than Class I railroads. For example, Class II regional railroads operate trains for shorter distances and at lower speeds than Class I railroads. Class II regional railroads also were described in the June 27, 2019 petition as typically having fewer managerial layers and without their own training facilities, which would further differentiate them from Class I railroads. That petition also asserts that even large contractors are often not comparable to Class I railroads considering that a contractor's workforce is likely to be more spreadout, resulting in the contractor incurring greater implementation costs and stretched resources than a Class I railroad. Further, the June 27, 2019 petition states that FRA's regulation treats medium and large contractors the same as a Class I railroad even if the contractor's railroad-related work is only a small percentage of its work and is equal to that of a small entity contractor.
        FRA's Response
        In the 2014 Final Rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis (2014 RIA), FRA made certain assumptions. For instance, FRA assumed that all seven Class I freight railroads, all 26 commuter railroads, and two intercity passenger railroads would not rely on model programs. Another assumption in the 2014 RIA was that 10 other entities (5 Class II railroads, 2 Class III railroads, and 3 contractors) would not rely on model programs. Thus, FRA agrees with the premise in ASLRRA and NRC's June 27, 2019 petition that, except for the approximately 45 employers who FRA estimated would develop their own programs, it is likely that the remainder will implement model programs because doing so would minimize costs for each employer. Treating this remainder group of employers in the same manner as the small entities would therefore reflect a more consistent approach to those employers adopting model programs.

        In responding to the petitions for rulemaking, FRA is proposing to delay the implementation dates in the rule for all contractors, and those Class II and III railroads that are not intercity or commuter passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more. However, FRA does not agree with the request in ASLRRA and NRC's petition to propose delaying all the implementation dates for an additional two years or to suspend the rule indefinitely while FRA considers the other requests in the June 27, 2019 petition.
        FRA's proposed response is specifically targeted to equalize the implementation dates for those employers most likely to adopt model programs rather than develop their own programs as FRA identified in the 2014 RIA. The reason for this specifically targeted proposed rule is that FRA is considering whether to initiate a separate rulemaking which would be limited to amending FRA's training regulation so that the regulatory text includes the latest guidance that is intended to help small entities and other users of model training programs. Thus, without any changes to the implementation dates, the targeted employers might not understand that the regulation contains more flexibility than is commonly understood or they may not feel comfortable following the guidance believing there is regulatory uncertainty.
        FRA understands that many regulated entities are on schedule to meet the deadlines in the part 243 regulation. For those regulated entities that are prepared to move forward in advance of any deadline, there is certainly no prohibition against doing so and implementing a compliant training program earlier than required should benefit the overall safety of those employers' operations.
        In consideration of the foregoing, FRA is proposing to reclassify those employers that FRA anticipates will likely adopt a model program so that they have the same implementation deadlines as the small entities. For purposes of this proposed rule, the Class II and III railroads and the contractors who would get relief provide training and operations in a manner more similar to that of a small entity than a Class I railroad thereby justifying delays in the implementation schedule. The proposed implementation date delays will not impact the Class I railroads, and those commuter and intercity passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more.
        Section-by-Section Analysis
        Subpart B—Program Components and Approval Process
        Section 243.101 Employer Program Required
        FRA proposes to amend the implementation date in § 243.101(a)(1) so that it is limited to Class I railroads, and those intercity or commuter passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more. Also, FRA proposes to amend this section so that all employers not covered by § 243.101(a)(1) will now be covered by § 243.101(a)(2), unless the employer is commencing operations after January 1, 2020 and would be covered by § 243.101(b). In other words, § 243.101(a)(1) would specifically except all contractors, and those Class II and III railroads that are not intercity or commuter passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more from complying with the January 1, 2020 training program submission implementation deadline. Instead, under proposed § 243.101(a)(2), all contractors, and those Class II and III railroads that are not intercity or commuter passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more, will be required to comply with a training program submission deadline of May 1, 2021. Thus, those entities that benefit from the proposed rule will have an additional 16 months to submit a training program for their safety-related railroad employees.
        Subpart C—Program Implementation and Oversight Requirements
        Section 243.201 Employee Qualification Requirements
        FRA proposes to amend the implementation dates in paragraphs (a)(1) and (e)(1) of this section so that they are limited to Class I railroads, and those intercity or commuter passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more. Also, FRA proposes to amend this section so that all employers not covered by § 243.201 (a)(1) and (e)(1) will now be covered by § 243.201(a)(2) and (e)(2). Please note that an employer commencing operations after January 1, 2020 would still be covered by § 243.201(b) and would be expected to implement a refresher training program upon commencing operations.
        Regulatory Impact and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

        This proposed rule is a non-significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures. See 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979). The proposed rule also has followed the guidance of Executive Order 13771, which directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.” This rulemaking is a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” See 82 FR 9339, Jan. 30, 2017.
        As explained in the Supplementary Information section, FRA published the 2014 Final Rule to fulfill a statutory mandate. On May 3, 2017, FRA delayed implementation dates in the 2014 Final Rule by one year. On April 27, 2018, FRA responded to a petition for reconsideration of that May 2017 rule by granting the ASLRRA's request to delay the implementation dates an additional year. FRA is issuing a proposed rulemaking targeted to equalize the implementation dates for Class II railroads, Class III railroads, and contractors regardless of their annual employee work hours with the exception of those intercity or commuter passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more. With adoption of this proposed rule, the targeted employers will have until May 1, 2021 to submit a training program to FRA instead of the previous January 1, 2020 deadline which was applicable to railroads (regardless of whether they were Class II or III railroads), and contractors with 400,000 annual employee work hours or more.
        FRA believes that the proposed rule will reduce the regulatory burden on the railroad industry by delaying the implementation dates. This proposed rule will extend the implementation deadlines for some regulated entities by a total of 16 months from the 2018 request. This proposed rule would be beneficial for regulated entities by adding time for some railroads and contractors to comply.

        The costs arising from the training rule in 49 CFR part 243 over the 20-year period considered include: The costs of revising training programs to include “hands-on” training where appropriate, as well as the costs of creating entirely new training programs for any employer that does not have one already; the costs of customizing model training programs for those employers that choose to adopt a model program rather than create a new program; the costs of annual data review and analysis required in order to improve training programs; the costs of revising programs in later years; the costs of additional time new employees may have to spend in initial training; the costs of additional periodic oversight tests and inspections; the costs of additional qualification tests; and the costs of additional time all safety-related railroad employees may have to spend in refresher training. FRA is proposing to reclassify those employers that FRA anticipated in the 2014 RIA would likely adopt a model program so that the regulation would reflect a more consistent approach to those employers adopting model programs. Until the petitions for rulemaking were filed, FRA did not appreciate that the Class II and III railroads and the contractors who were not identified as small entities could be expected to encounter the same types of obstacles to training program implementation as that of a small entity. The proposed implementation date delay will not impact Class I railroads, and those commuter and intercity passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more. However, this rule proposes to provide all contractors, and those Class II and III railroads that are not currently identified as small entities in part 243 or commuter or intercity passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more, with an additional 16 months to submit a training program for their safety-related railroad employees. FRA is also proposing that those same employers get an additional 16 months to designate each of their existing safety-related railroad employees by occupational category or subcategory, and only permit designated employees to perform safety-related service in that occupational category or subcategory. Finally, FRA proposes that those same employers get one additional year to complete refresher training for each of their safety-related railroad employees. With this proposed rule, the training program submission date for Class II railroads, Class III railroads, and contractors regardless of their annual employee work hours, with the exception of those intercity or commuter passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more, would be delayed from January 1, 2020, to a new implementation date of May 1, 2021; the designation of employee date would be delayed from September 1, 2020, to a new implementation date of January 1, 2022; and, the deadline for the first refresher training cycle would be delayed from December 31, 2024, to a new deadline of December 31, 2025.
        FRA believes that additional hands-on and refresher training will reduce the frequency and severity of some future accidents and incidents. Expected safety benefits were calculated using full accident costs, which are based on past accident history, the values of preventing future fatalities and injuries sustained, and the cost of property damage. Full accident costs are determined by the number of fatalities and injuries multiplied by their respective prevention valuations, and the cost  of property damage. By delaying the implementation dates, all contractors, and those Class II and III railroads that are not intercity or commuter passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more will realize a cost savings. All contractors, and those Class II and III railroads that are not intercity or commuter passenger railroads with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more will not incur costs during the first 16 months of this analysis. Also, costs incurred in future years will be discounted an extra 16 months, which will decrease the present value burden. The present value of costs would be less than if the original implementation dates were maintained. FRA has estimated this cost savings to be approximately $3.0 million, at a 7% discount rate, for impacted railroads and contractors that will experience relief as a result of this proposed rule.
        Regulatory Flexibility Determination
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., and Executive Order 13272, 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), require agency review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small entities. An agency must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the FRA Administrator certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        “Small entity” is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as including a small business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has authority to regulate issues related to small businesses, and stipulates in its size standards that a “small entity” in the railroad industry is a for profit “linehaul railroad” that has fewer than 1,500 employees, a “short line railroad” with fewer than 500 employees, or a “commuter rail system” with annual receipts of less than 15 million dollars. See “Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards,” 13 CFR part 121, subpart A. Additionally, 5 U.S.C. 601(5) defines as “small entities” governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations less than 50,000. Federal agencies may adopt their own size standards for small entities, in consultation with SBA and in conjunction with public comment. Pursuant to that authority, FRA has published a final statement of agency policy that formally establishes “small entities” or “small businesses” as being railroads, contractors, and hazardous materials shippers that meet the revenue requirements of a Class III railroad as set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1-1, which is $20 million or less in inflation-adjusted annual revenues, and commuter railroads or small governmental jurisdictions that serve populations of 50,000 or less. See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003), codified at appendix C to 49 CFR part 209. The $20-million limit is based on the Surface Transportation Board's revenue threshold for a Class III railroad. Railroad revenue is adjusted for inflation by applying a revenue deflator formula in accordance with 49 CFR 1201.1-1. FRA is using this definition for this rulemaking.
        The requirements of this proposed rule would apply to employers of safety-related railroad employees that FRA previously determined were not small entities. This proposed rule would have no direct impact on small units of government, businesses, or other organizations. State rail agencies are not required to participate in this program. State owned railroads would receive a positive impact by having additional time to comply. Therefore, the proposed rule would not impact any small entities. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(b), the FRA Administrator hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. FRA requests comments on all aspects of this certification.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        There are no new collection of information requirements contained in this proposed rule and, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the recordkeeping and reporting requirements already contained in the 2014 Final Rule have been approved by OMB. The OMB approval number is OMB No. 2130-0597. Thus, FRA is not required to seek additional OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

        Federalism Implications
        This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Thus in accordance with Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.
        International Trade Impact Assessment
        The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
        This proposed rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.
        Environmental Impact

        FRA has evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with its “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts” (FRA's Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that this proposed rule is not a major FRA action, requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment, because it is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. See 64 FR 28547 (May 26, 1999).
        In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to this proposed rule that might trigger the need for a more detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this proposed rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        Pursuant to section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law). Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written statement detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.
        Energy Impact
        Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order 13211, and determined that this regulatory action is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of the Executive Order.
        Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” requires Federal agencies to review regulations to determine whether they potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. 82 FR 16093 (Mar. 31, 2017). FRA determined this proposed rule will not burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources.
        Privacy Act

        In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the agency for alternate submission instructions.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 243
          Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Railroad employees, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        The Proposed Rule
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend part 243 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 243—TRAINING, QUALIFICATION, AND OVERSIGHT FOR SAFETY-RELATED RAILROAD EMPLOYEES [AMENDED]

        1. The authority citation for part 243 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20131-20155, 20162, 20301-20306, 20701-20702, 21301-21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.

          Subpart B—Program Components and Approval Process

         2. Revise § 243.101 paragraph (a) to read as follows:

          § 243.101
          Employer program required.
          (a)(1) Effective January 1, 2020, each Class I railroad, and each intercity or commuter passenger railroad conducting operations subject to this part with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more, shall submit, adopt, and comply with a training program for its safety-related railroad employees.
          (2) Effective May 1, 2021, each employer conducting operations subject to this part not covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall submit, adopt, and comply with a training program for its safety-related railroad employees.

          Subpart C—Program Implementation and Oversight Requirements

        3. Revise § 243.201 paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), and (e)(1) and (2) to read as follows:

          § 243.201
          Employee qualification requirements.
          (a) * * *

          (1) By no later than September 1, 2020, each Class I railroad, and each intercity or commuter passenger railroad conducting operations subject to this part with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more in operation as of January 1, 2020, shall declare the designation of each of its existing safety-related railroad employees by occupational category or subcategory, and only permit designated employees to perform safety-related service in that occupational category or subcategory. The Associate Administrator may extend this period based on a written request.
          (2) By no later than January 1, 2022, each employer conducting operations subject to this part not covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this section in operation as of January 1, 2021, shall declare the designation of each of its existing safety-related railroad employees by occupational category or subcategory, and only permit designated employees to perform safety-related service in that occupational category or subcategory. The Associate Administrator may extend this period based on a written request.

          (e) * * *
          (1) Beginning January 1, 2022, each Class I railroad, and each intercity or commuter passenger railroad conducting operations subject to this part with 400,000 total employee work hours annually or more, shall deliver refresher training at an interval not to exceed 3 calendar years from the date of an employee's last training event, except where refresher training is specifically required more frequently in accordance with this chapter. If the last training event occurs before FRA's approval of the employer's training program, the employer shall provide refresher training either within 3 calendar years from that prior training event or no later than December 31, 2024. Each employer shall ensure that, as part of each employee's refresher training, the employee is trained and qualified on the application of any Federal railroad safety laws, regulations, and orders the person is required to comply with, as well as any relevant railroad rules and procedures promulgated to implement those Federal railroad safety laws, regulations, and orders.
          (2) Beginning May 1, 2023, each employer conducting operations subject to this part not covered by paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall deliver refresher training at an interval not to exceed 3 calendar years from the date of an employee's last training event, except where refresher training is specifically required more frequently in accordance with this chapter. If the last training event occurs before FRA's approval of the employer's training program, the employer shall provide refresher training either within 3 calendar years from that prior training event or no later than December 31, 2025. Each employer shall ensure that, as part of each employee's refresher training, the employee is trained and qualified on the application of any Federal railroad safety laws, regulations, and orders the person is required to comply with, as well as any relevant railroad rules and procedures promulgated to implement those Federal railroad safety laws, regulations, and orders.

          Issued in Washington, DC.
          Ronald L. Batory,
          Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.

      [FR Doc. 2019-24822 Filed 11-21-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Part 52
        [FAR Case 2006-012; Docket 2006-0020; Sequence 4]
        RIN:  9000-AK51
        Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2006-012; Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statute or Executive Orders—Commercial Items

          AGENCIES:
          Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to update the required contract clauses that implement provisions of law or executive orders for acquisitions of commercial items.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the FAR Secretariat on or before September 25, 2006 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by FAR case 2006-012 by any of the following methods:

        •Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://acquisition.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
        • Agency Web site: http:// acquisition.gov/far/ProposedRules/proposed.htm. Click on the FAR case number to submit comments.
        • E-mail: farcase.2006-012@gsa.gov.  Include FAR case 2006-012 in the subject line of the message.
        • Fax:  202-501-4067.
        • Mail:  General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN:  Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC  20405.

          Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2006-012 in all correspondence related to this case.  All comments received will be posted without change to http://acquisition.gov/far/ProposedRules/proposed.htm, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For clarification of content, contact Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 208-4949.  Please cite FAR case 2006-012.   For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the FAR Secretariat at (202) 501-4755.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A.  Background
        In accordance with Section 8002 of Public Law 103-355 (41 U.S.C. 264, note), contract clauses applicable to acquisitions of commercial items are limited, to the maximum extent practicable, to clauses that are—
        (1)-Required to implement provisions of law or executive orders applicable to the acquisition of commercial items; or
        (2)-Determined to be consistent with customary commercial practice.
        The clause at FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders —Commercial Items, incorporates, by reference, the contract clauses that the contracting officer may select to implement provisions of law or executive orders for acquisitions of commercial items.  The clause at FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages—Subcontracting Plan, is a contract clause that is required to implement 15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)(F)(i).  However, the clause at FAR 52.219-16 is not included in the list of clauses for commercial contracts in FAR 52.212-5.  This proposed rule will incorporate the clause at FAR 52.219-16 in the list of clauses for commercial contracts that the contracting officer may select.
        This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.  This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

        B.  Regulatory Flexibility Act--The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule merely clarifies existing language and does not change existing policy.  Therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been performed.  The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR  clause at 52.212-5 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610.  Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite FAR case 2006-012.
        C.  Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 52
          Government procurement.

          Dated: July 19, 2006.
          Ralph De Stefano
          Director, Contract Policy Division.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR Part 52 as set forth below:

          PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES-

        1.  The authority citation for 48 CFR part 52 continues to read as follows:-

          Authority:
          40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).

        2.  Amend section 52.212-5 by redesignating paragraphs (b)(10) through (b)(35) as (b)(11) through (b)(36), respectively, and adding a new (b)(10) to read as follows:
        52.212-5  Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statues or Executive Orders—Commercial Items.

        (b) * * *

        (10) 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan [Date](15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)(F)(i)).

      [FR Doc. 06-6471 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 222
        [Docket No. 011130288-1288-01; I.D. 092101C]
        RIN 0648-AP64
        Endangered and Threatened Species; Transfer of Permits

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for public comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes a rule that would allow the transfer of certain permits issued by NMFS under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.  This proposed rule would allow the transfer of permits associated with Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements with Assurances and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances.  Currently, if a permit holder wants to sell property to a new owner, the new owner would need to apply for a separate permit.  If regulations are put in place to allow transfers, time and money will be saved for NMFS and the new landowner with no adverse impact on the environment.

          DATES:

          Written comments on the proposed rule must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on February 4, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on this proposed rule should be addressed to the Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD  20910.  Comments may also be sent via fax to (301) 713-0376.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Margaret Lorenz or Lamont Jackson at (301) 713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        NMFS is responsible for implementing the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., with respect to most threatened and endangered marine species.

        NMFS' regulation at 50 CFR 222.305 prohibits the transfer of all permits issued under section 10(a) of the ESA.  While the restrictions imposed on permit succession and transferability are well justified for most situations (e.g., scientific research permits), they are unnecessary and inappropriate for enhancement and incidental take permits associated with Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements with Assurances and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances.  These permits involve substantial long-term conservation commitments, and NMFS negotiates these permits recognizing that there may be succession or transfer in ownership during the term of the permit.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) which also implements the ESA, issued final regulations on June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32706), allowing the transfer of these enhancement and incidental take permits, provided certain conditions are met.  On January 22, 2001 (66 FR 6483), FWS reconfirmed its decision to allow the transfer of these specific permits.
        NMFS believes that a blanket prohibition on transferability of incidental take permits under ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) and enhancement permits issued for Safe Harbor Agreements with Assurances and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances under section 10(a)(1)(A) is too constraining, given the context and purpose of these plans and agreements.  This proposed rule (revising 50 CFR 222.305) would remove the prohibition on transferability of incidental take and enhancement permits with respect to these named agreements.  However, this proposed rule would require NMFS to determine that the transferee has given adequate written assurance to NMFS that it can and will fulfill the obligations of the permit.
        Description of Permits

          Safe Harbor Agreements with Assurances:  Under the Safe Harbor policy, non-Federal property owners with an approved agreement will receive assurances that additional land, water, and/or natural resource use restrictions will not be imposed in exchange for their voluntary conservation actions to benefit listed species covered in the agreement.  If the Agreement provides a net conservation benefit to the covered species and the property owner meets all the terms of the Agreement, NMFS will authorize the taking of the covered species to enable the property owner to ultimately return the enrolled property back to agreed upon conditions.  These assurances will be provided in the property owner's Safe Harbor Agreement and in an associated Enhancement of Survival permit issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA.

          Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances:  Under this policy, non-Federal property owners who commit, through a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances, to implement conservation measures for a candidate or proposed species, or a species likely to become a candidate or proposed in the near future, will receive assurances that additional conservation measures will not be required and additional land, water, or resource use restrictions will not be imposed should the species become listed in the future.  These assurances will be provided in the property owner's Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances and in an associated Enhancement of Survival permit issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA.

          Habitat Conservation Plans:  The development of a conservation plan (sometimes referred to as a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)) is a required element of an application for an incidental take permit, and involves long-term conservation commitments that may “run with the land,” or obligate a landowner for the life of the permit.  In negotiating such commitments, it is recognized that a succession of owners may purchase or sell the affected property during the term of the permit.  Species covered by the conversation measures should not be affected by the change in ownership if the successive owners agree to be bound by the terms of the permit.  Property owners are willing to undertake these commitments if they know they can transfer their incidental take authorization (and HCP obligations) to the purchaser.  Absent the ability to transfer the permit and thereby obtain long-term assurances of certainty, some landowners may be unwilling to enter into long-term commitments.  For many HCPs, both FWS and NMFS issue an incidental take permit.  It is confusing and inconsistent if FWS' permits are transferable and NMFS' permits are not.
        This proposed rule would alleviate the constraints on permit transferability to allow those who have permits associated with HCPs, Safe Harbor Agreements with Assurances and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances the flexibility to transfer permits to qualified purchasers, and eliminates inconsistency between the regulations of the two agencies administering the ESA.
        The proposed rule would allow transfer of these permits only so long as the successor or transferee owners meet the general qualifications for holding the permits and agree to the terms of the HCP, Safe Harbor Agreement with Assurances or Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances.
        Description/Overview of the Revisions to Permit Regulations
        Section 222.305(a) would be revised to allow transferability of permits issued under 50 CFR parts 222, 223, and 224 where NMFS determines the transferee has given adequate written assurance (signing of a contract) that they can and will fulfill the obligations of the permit.
        This proposed rule does not apply to scientific research permits issued under ESA section 10(a)(1)(A).  It applies only to incidental take permits, and enhancement permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) in association with a Safe Harbor Agreement with Assurances or Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances.  Further, any permits issued by NMFS for scientific research and enhancement for ESA-listed species, including marine mammals (50 CFR 222.308 (b),(c), 216.41) are not transferable (50 CFR 216.35), and this proposed rule will not affect this restriction or the regulations at 50 CFR 216.41 and 222.308(b)(c).  These permits are not transferable because they are part of scientific research permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A), and require that the holder/principal investigator be qualified to conduct the research and enhancement activities described in the original application and permit.
        Public Comments Solicited
        NMFS requests comments on any aspect of this proposed rule.  NMFS particularly would like to hear from individuals who have experience with FWS' rule for transferring incidental take permits.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the ESA and with other applicable laws.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        Since the changes in this proposed rule do not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, this proposed rule has been determined to be categorically excluded under the National Environmental Policy Act.
        Executive Order 12866
        This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        This proposed rule will establish the process for transfers of incidental take permits when a new party acquires land subject to an existing, ongoing HCP, Safe Harbor Agreement with Assurances or Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances.  It will reduce the costs to both the transferees and the agency.  Currently, the transfer of an incidental take permit or an enhancement permit to a new landowner can be accomplished only by the new landowner submitting an application for its own permit (using the pre-existing conservation plan or agreement developed by the prior landowner).  That permit would then be processed by NMFS and new documents prepared to issue a new permit would be accompanied by a simultaneous surrender of the permit held by the prior landowner.  Under this system, the time required for processing a new permit will always result in a lapse in coverage between the date of the acquisition of the land by the new owner and the issuance of the new permit.  Under this proposed rule, the transfer process would be streamlined and paperwork reduced.  As long as the new landowner is appropriately qualified, the permit can be transferred by a simple assignment and assumption agreement between NMFS and the new landowner.  NMFS would save time and document preparation and processing expenses, as would the landowner involved.  This proposed rule would decrease the costs of permit transfers on both large and small businesses alike.  Thus, the economic effects of the proposed rule will be positive.
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, since the rule would reduce cost associated with land transfers.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of  the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA.  This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval.  Public reporting burden for a permit transfer is estimated to average 40 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

          Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS (see ADDRESSES above), and to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC. 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).
        Executive Order 13132—Federalism
        Executive Order 13132 requires that agencies take into account any federalism impacts of regulations under development.  It includes specific consultation directives for situations where a regulation will preempt state law or impose substantial direct compliance cost on state and local governments (unless required by statute).  Neither of these circumstances is applicable to this proposed rule.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 222

        Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

          Dated:  December 14, 2001.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 222 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 222—GENERAL ENDANGERED AND THREATENED MARINE SPECIES

          1.  The authority citation for part 222 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.; 16 U.S.C. 742a et. seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701.  Section 222.403 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et. seq.

          2.  In § 222.305, paragraph (a)(1) is revised and paragraph (a)(3) is added to read as follows:

            § 222.305
            Rights of succession and transfer of permits.
            (a)(1)  Except as otherwise provided in this section, permits issued pursuant to parts 222, 223, and 224 of this chapter are not transferable or assignable.  In the event that a permit authorizes certain business activities in connection with a business or commercial enterprise, which is then subject to any subsequent lease, sale or transfer, the successor to that enterprise must obtain a permit prior to continuing the permitted activity, with the exceptions provided in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.

            (3)  Permits issued under § 222.307 or for an enhancement permit issued under § 222.308, as part of a Safe Harbor Agreement with Assurances or Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances, may be transferred in whole or in part through a joint submission by the permittee and the proposed transferee, or in the case of a deceased permittee, the deceased permittee's legal representative and the proposed transferee, provided NMFS determines that:
            (i) The proposed transferee meets all of the qualifications under parts 222, 223, or 224 (as applicable) for holding a permit;
            (ii) The proposed transferee has provided adequate written assurances that it will provide sufficient funding for the conservation plan or other agreement or plan associated with the permit and will implement the relevant terms and conditions of the permit, including any outstanding minimization and mitigation requirements; and
            (iii) The proposed transferee has provided such other information as NMFS determines is relevant to process the transfer.

      [FR Doc. 01-31544 Filed 12-20-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 20-428; RM-11870; DA 20-1487; FRS 17346]
        Television Broadcasting Services: Columbia, Missouri

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by The Curators of the University of Missouri (the University), licensee of KOMU-TV, channel 8, Columbia, Missouri, requesting the substitution of channel 27 for channel 8 at Columbia in the DTV Table of Allotments. The University states that the Commission has recognized that VHF channels have certain propagation characteristics which may cause reception issues for some viewers. The University states that since the end of the DTV transition in 2009, the station regularly receives complaints from viewers who report being able to receive all other signals in the market, including a low power television station operating on a UHF channel, but not KOMU-TV. While KOMU-TV's proposed channel 27 facility would result in a slight reduction of service to existing viewers, the University demonstrates that only 401 people are predicted to live in portions of the loss area, and that all but seven of those persons will continue to be served by at least five full power television stations. The Commission has found that population loss of less than 500 persons is de minimus and the predicted population loss as presented by the University is only 401 persons and virtually all of them will continue to be well-served by five other full power television stations.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before January 29, 2021 and reply comments on or before February 16, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Lauren Lynch Flick, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1200 Seventeenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 20-428; RM-11870; DA 20-1487, adopted December 16, 2020, and released December 16, 2020. The full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs.
          To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

        This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.
        Members of the public should note that all ex parte contacts are prohibited from the time a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued to the time the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, however, exceptions to this prohibition, which can be found in § 1.1204(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(a).
        See §§ 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules for information regarding the proper filing procedures for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Thomas Horan,
          Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.

        Proposed Rule
        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, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, and 339.

          § 73.622
          [Amended]

        2. Amend § 73.622(i), the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Missouri, by removing channel 8 and adding channel 27 at Columbia.

      [FR Doc. 2020-28613 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P