60-day Federal Register Notice

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

30532

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Notices

individual CDL program. However,
within this proposal there are some
concerns. Colorado is concerned that
there is no disclosure of what will be
contained in the proposed spreadsheet.
Additionally, regarding data accuracy
there is no indication as to what level
of error constitutes a compliance issue.
Colorado feels that there should be an
opportunity to comment on all
information that will be contained in
the proposed spreadsheet and what will
meet compliance and what will not.
Moving forward, Colorado would like a
better understanding as to the
relationship between what is contained
in the proposed spreadsheet and the
Annual Performance Review (APR).
Will both documents still be required
and will they be done at the same time?
Colorado would also like clarification as
to whether the 40 hours discussed in the
proposed rule also covers time spent
completing the APR documents.
Colorado would hope that effort to
prevent duplicity has been made.
Colorado would also like clarification
on this remark. The program plan is
completed on a one time basis as
required by Section 32305 of MAP–21.
There is no continuing information
collection function associated with
submitting the Program Plan. What does
this mean? Overall, to fully comment on
this proposal, Colorado would like a
better understanding as to what FMCSA
is going to require from the SDLAs
regarding what is compliance and what
a SDLA will have to do to remain or get
into compliance and how long they will
have to do so.
When developing the spreadsheet to
meet the Section 32305 of MAP–21
requirement, FMCSA decided upon an
approach that would limit the amount
of duplicity and redundancy of the
various FMCSA requirements. The
spreadsheet has been placed in the
FMCSA docket and is available for
immediate public consideration at the
location http://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=FMCSA-20140133-0007 as item 7. Specifically, the
spreadsheet focuses on each specific
section of 49 CFR part 384 and asks the
question if the State is in compliance
with each requirement? If not, the
follow-up question is, does a State have
an approved Action Plan within ACRS?
If yes, then the State has fulfilled that
specific requirement. If not, then the
State would have to provide an action
plan for each compliance finding or
deficiency within the spreadsheet that
does not have an approved action plan
within ACRS. A finding or deficiency is
an instance where the State is not in
compliance with a particular part of the
regulations. This could be from any

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:18 May 27, 2015

Jkt 235001

number of activities, including an
Annual Program or Skills Test Review,
a review of a State’s data, and operation
performance, a comprehensive
compliance review, or any other means
by which FMCSA may become aware
that a State is not in compliance. This
particular aspect has not changed by the
State Plan requirement, and the
publishing of this ICR. The State Plan
requirement is not a reoccurring
requirement. Section 32305 of MAP–21
required the submittal of a State Plan
one time.
The North Carolina Department of
Transportation stated that it contends
that the requirement to submit the CDL
Program Plan is redundant since this
information is already available to
FMCSA on ACRS. This requirement
places an additional burden on the
states when efforts are needed most to
work toward compliance with the
regulations.
The FMCSA has developed the
spreadsheet to eliminate redundancy
and limit the amount of time and effort
for each State to complete and to
comply with this requirement. In
addition, the Section 32305 of MAP–21
requirement for States to provide
assurances that they will remain in
compliance through September 30,
2016, is not information that is currently
available to FMCSA.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including: (1)
Whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the FMCSA to perform its
functions; (2) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (3) ways for the
FMCSA to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the collected
information; and (4) ways that the
burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected
information.
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87
on: May 18, 2015.
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research
and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2015–12856 Filed 5–27–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

PO 00000

Frm 00102

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2015–0146]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Extension of a Currently
Approved Collection; Training
Certification for Entry-Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
FMCSA announces its plan to submit
the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public
comment. The Agency is asking OMB to
renew without change FMCSA’s
estimate of the paperwork burden
imposed by its regulations pertaining to
the training of certain entry-level drivers
of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs).
Since 2004, FMCSA regulations have
prohibited the operation of certain
CMVs by individuals with less than 1
year of CMV-driving experience until
they obtain this training.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before July 27, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA–
2015–0146 using any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 20590–
0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
• Instructions: All submissions must
include the Agency name and docket
number. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on the exemption process,
see the Public Participation heading
below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM

28MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Notices
• Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the
dockets, or go to the street address listed
above.
• Privacy Act: Anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System published
in the Federal Register on January 17,
2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/
pdfE8–794.pdf.
• Public Participation: The Federal
eRulemaking Portal is available 24
hours each day, 365 days each year. You
can obtain electronic submission and
retrieval help and guidelines under the
‘‘help’’ section of the Federal
eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you
want us to notify you that we received
your comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or
postcard, or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting
comments online. Comments received
after the comment closing date will be
included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division,
Department of Transportation, FMCSA,
West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC,
20590. Telephone: 202–366–4325.
Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Background
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (49 U.S.C. 31301
et seq.) established the commercial
driver’s license (CDL) program and
directed the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), FMCSA’s
predecessor agency, to establish
minimum qualifications for issuance of
a CDL. After public notice and an
opportunity for comment, the FHWA
established standards for the knowledge
and skills that a CDL applicant must
satisfy.
In 1985, the FHWA published the
‘‘Model Curriculum for Training
Tractor-Trailer Drivers.’’ The FHWA did
not mandate driver training at that time.
It believed the cost of developing a
comprehensive driver-training program
was too high in terms of agency

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:18 May 27, 2015

Jkt 235001

resources. This was especially so,
FHWA believed, in light of its
reasonable expectation that the level of
safety of entry level drivers would soon
be elevated because (1) the deadline for
States to adopt the new mandatory CDLlicensing standards for driver
knowledge and skills was still in the
future, and (2) many truck driving
schools had updated their curricula in
light of the new model curriculum
(‘‘Truck Safety: Information on Driver
Training,’’ Report of the U.S. General
Accounting Office, GAO/RCED–89–163,
August 1989, pages 4 and 5).
In 1991, the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102–240, December 18,
1991) directed the FHWA to
‘‘commence a rulemaking proceeding on
the need to require training of all entrylevel drivers of commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs)’’ (Section 4007(a)(2)).
On June 21, 1993, the FHWA issued an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled, ‘‘Commercial Motor Vehicles:
Training for All Entry Level Drivers’’ (58
FR 33874). The Agency also began a
study of the effectiveness of the driver
training currently being received by
entry-level CMV drivers. The results of
the study were published in 1997 under
the title ‘‘Adequacy of Commercial
Motor Vehicle Driver Training.’’ The
study is available under FMCSA Docket
1997–2199 at the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (www.regulations.gov) described
above. The study found that three
segments of the trucking industry were
not receiving adequate entry-level
training: heavy truck, motor coach, and
school bus.
On August 15, 2003, FMCSA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled,
‘‘Minimum Training Requirements for
Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators’’ (68 FR 48863). The Agency
proposed mandatory training for
operators of CMVs on four topics: driver
qualifications, hours-of-service of
drivers, driver wellness and whistleblower protection. The Agency believed
that knowledge of these areas would
provide the greatest benefit to the safety
of CMV operations. On May 21, 2004,
FMCSA by final rule prohibited a motor
carrier from allowing an entry-level
driver to operate a CMV until it received
a written certificate indicating that the
driver had received training in the four
subject areas (69 FR 29384). The rule
became effective on July 20, 2004.
Training providers were required to
provide a certificate to each driver
trainee receiving the requisite training.
The Agency is asking OMB to renew
without change FMCSA’s estimate of
the paperwork burden imposed by its

PO 00000

Frm 00103

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

30533

regulations. (The Agency is currently
conducting a negotiated rulemaking to
redesign training for entry-level CMV
operators; if the rulemaking amends
driver-training requirements, the
Agency will submit an estimate of the
ICR burden of the requirements for OMB
approval).
Title: Training Certification for EntryLevel Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators
OMB Control Number: 2126–0028.
Type of Request: Extension of a
currently approved ICR.
Respondents: Entry-level CDL drivers.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
397,500.
Estimated Time per Response: 10
minutes.
Expiration Date: January 31, 2016.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
66,250 hours. FMCSA estimates that an
entry-level driver requires
approximately 10 minutes to complete
the tasks necessary to comply with the
regulation. Those tasks are
photocopying the training certificate,
giving the photocopy to the motor
carrier employer, and retaining the
original of the certificate. Therefore, the
annual burden for all entry-level drivers
is 66,250 hours [397,500 drivers x 10/60
minutes to respond = 66,250 hours].
Definitions: (1) ‘‘Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations’’ (FMCSRs) are parts
350–399 of volume 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. (2) ‘‘Commercial
motor vehicle’’ (CMV) means a motor
vehicle or combination of motor
vehicles used in commerce to transport
passengers or property if the motor
vehicle—(a) has a gross combination
weight rating of 11,794 kilograms or
more (26,001 pounds or more) inclusive
of a towed unit(s) with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of more than
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds); or (b)
has a GVWR of 11,794 or more
kilograms (26,001 pounds or more); or
(c) is designed to transport 16 or more
passengers, including the driver; or (d)
is of any size and is used in the
transportation of hazardous materials as
defined in 49 CFR 383.5 (49 CFR 383.5).
The definition of CMV found at 49 CFR
390.5 of the FMCSRs is not applicable
to this notice. (3) ‘‘Commercial Driver’s
License (CDL) Driver’’ means the
operator of a CMV because such
operators must possess a valid
commercial driver’s license
(CDL)(Section 383.23(a)(2)). (4) ‘‘Entrylevel CDL Driver’’ means a driver with
less than one year of experience
operating a CMV with a CDL (49 CFR
380.502(b)).
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this

E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM

28MYN1

30534

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Notices

information collection, including: (1)
Whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the FMCSA’s performance
of functions; (2) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (3) ways for the
FMCSA to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the collected
information; and (4) ways that the
burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected
information. The agency will summarize
or include your comments in the request
for OMB’s clearance of this information
collection.
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87
on: May 18, 2015.
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of
Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2015–12855 Filed 5–27–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
[Emergency Order No. 31, Notice No. 1]

Emergency Order Under 49 U.S.C.
20104 Establishing Requirements for
the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation To Control Passenger
Train Speeds at Certain Locations
Along the Northeast Corridor
FRA is issuing this emergency
order (EO or Order) to require that the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) take actions to control
passenger train speed at certain
locations on main line track in the
Northeast Corridor (as described by 49
U.S.C. 24905(c)(1)(A)). Amtrak must
immediately implement code changes to
its Automatic Train Control (ATC)
System to enforce the passenger train
speed limit ahead of the curve at
Frankford Junction in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, where a fatal accident
occurred on May 12, 2015. Amtrak must
also identify each main track curve on
the Northeast Corridor where there is a
significant reduction (more than 20
miles per hour (mph)) from the
maximum authorized approach speed to
those curves for passenger trains.
Amtrak must then develop and comply
with an FRA-approved action plan to
modify its existing ATC System or other
signal systems (or take alternative
operational actions) to enable
enforcement of passenger train speed
limits at the identified curves. Amtrak
must also install additional wayside
passenger train speed limit signage at
appropriate locations on its Northeast
Corridor right-of-way.

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:18 May 27, 2015

Jkt 235001

Ron
Hynes, Director, Office of Safety
Assurance and Compliance, Office of
Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
telephone (202) 493–6404; Joseph St.
Peter, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief
Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone
(202) 493–6047, [email protected];
or Matthew Navarrete, Trial Attorney,
Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590, telephone (202) 493–0138,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Introduction
FRA has determined that public safety
compels issuance of this EO. This
determination is made in light of the
Amtrak train derailment that occurred
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on May
12, 2015, in which eight persons were
killed and a significant number of others
were seriously injured. While the cause
of the accident has not yet been
determined, preliminary investigation
into this derailment indicates the train
was traveling approximately 106 mph
on a curve where the maximum
authorized passenger train speed is 50
mph. This was a serious overspeed
event and FRA has concluded that
additional action is necessary in the
form of this EO to eliminate an
immediate hazard of death, personal
injury, or significant harm to the
environment.
Authority
Authority to enforce Federal railroad
safety laws has been delegated by the
Secretary of Transportation to the
Administrator of FRA. 49 CFR 1.89 and
internal delegations. Railroads are
subject to FRA’s safety jurisdiction
under the Federal railroad safety laws.
49 U.S.C. 20101, 20103. FRA is
authorized to issue emergency orders
where an unsafe condition or practice
‘‘causes an emergency situation
involving a hazard of death, personal
injury, or significant harm to the
environment.’’ 49 U.S.C. 20104. These
orders may immediately impose
‘‘restrictions and prohibitions . . . that
may be necessary to abate the
situation.’’ Id.
Amtrak Derailment
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015, Amtrak
passenger train 188 (Train 188) was
traveling timetable east (northbound)
from Washington, DC, to New York City.
Aboard the train were five crew
members and approximately 238
passengers. Train 188 consisted of a
conventional set-up with a locomotive

PO 00000

Frm 00104

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

in the lead and seven passenger cars
trailing. Shortly after 9:20 p.m., the train
derailed while traveling through a curve
in the track at Frankford Junction in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As a result
of the accident, eight people were
killed, and a significant number of
people were seriously injured.
The National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) has taken the lead role
conducting the investigation of this
accident under its legal authority. 49
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.; 49 CFR 800.3(a) and
831.2(b). As is customary, FRA is
participating in the NTSB’s
investigation and also investigating the
accident under its own authority. While
NTSB has not yet issued any formal
findings, the information it has released
makes it obvious that train speed was a
likely factor in the derailment. As Train
188 approached the curve from the
west, it traveled over a straightaway
with a maximum authorized passenger
train speed of 80 mph. The maximum
authorized passenger train speed for the
curve was 50 mph. NTSB determined
that the train was traveling
approximately 106 mph within the
curve’s 50-mph speed restriction,
exceeding the maximum authorized
speed on the straightaway by 26 mph,
and 56 mph over railroad’s maximum
authorized speed for the curve.1 NTSB
also determined the locomotive
engineer operating the train made an
emergency application of Train 188’s air
brake system, and the train slowed to
approximately 102 mph before derailing
in the curve.
2013 Metro-North Derailment
Upon evaluating the Amtrak accident
described above, FRA found similarities
to an accident that occurred in
December 2013, on the New York State
Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s
Metro-North Commuter Railroad
Company (Metro-North) track. The
Metro-North accident was the subject of
FRA’s Emergency Order No. 29. 78 FR
75442, Dec. 11, 2013. That accident
occurred when a Metro-North passenger
train was traveling south toward Grand
Central Terminal in New York City. The
train traveled over a straightaway with
a maximum authorized passenger train
speed of 70 mph before reaching a sharp
curve in the track with a maximum
authorized speed of 30 mph. NTSB’s
investigation of the Metro-North
accident determined the train was
traveling approximately 82 mph as it
entered the curve’s 30-mph speed
1 FRA regulations provide, in part, that it is
unlawful to ‘‘[o]perate a train or locomotive at a
speed which exceeds the maximum authorized
limit by at least 10 miles per hour.’’ 49 CFR
240.305(a)(2).

E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM

28MYN1