[Federal Register: August 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 157)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47124-47125]
[DOCID:fr13au08-29]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 214

[Docket No. FRA-2008-0059, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AB93

Railroad Workplace Safety; Adjacent-Track On-Track Safety for
Roadway Workers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On July 17, 2008, FRA published an NPRM in the Federal
Register addressing adjacent-track on-track safety procedures for
roadway workers. For the reasons stated below, FRA has decided to
withdraw the NPRM.

DATES: The NPRM published on July 17, 2008 at 73 FR 41214 is withdrawn
as of August 13, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Rusk, Staff Director, Track
Division, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., RRS-15, Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Anna Winkle, Trial Attorney, Office of
Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., RCC-12, Mail Stop 10,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPRM was developed in order to respond
to fatal train incidents and in response to recommendations from the
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). The NPRM was published with
an abbreviated comment period in order to address the issue in a more
timely fashion, in response to a joint petition for Emergency Order
that was filed by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
Division (BMWED) and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS).
However, since the publication of the NPRM, FRA received a joint
request from BMWED and BRS that FRA extend the comment period for this
NPRM to 60 days, due to concern that parts of the NPRM failed to
accurately capture the consensus recommendations of the RSAC.\1\ The
joint request did not specify which parts of the NPRM failed to reflect
the consensus recommendations, and no formal comments have been
submitted by the BMWED or BRS to that effect. However, there have been
several ``ex parte'' communications subsequent to the filing of the
joint request in which a representative of the BMWED has recommended
that FRA make very specific changes to the proposed rule. In accordance
with the Department of Transportation's Policy (Order No. 2100.2
(1970)), all communications between FRA employees and other parties
since the publication of the NPRM have been reduced to writing and
placed in the public docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FRA notes that extending the comment period to September 15,
2008, would remove all possibilities of any final rule becoming
effective prior to the fourth quarter (October-December), in which
the majority of the adjacent-track fatalities have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that while the proposed rule text was intended
to be responsive to the intent of the consensus language recommended to
FRA by the RSAC, FRA may not delegate its rulemaking authority to a
committee, and may choose to accept or reject any or all of the
consensus proposals for cause stated. However, in consideration of the
assistance provided by the RSAC, FRA does endeavor to ensure that FRA
representatives to the consensus process reflect the policies of the
Federal Railroad Administrator. In reviewing the consensus language,
there were several areas that FRA thought needed clarification in order
to ensure uniform application of the law, as well as enforceability of
the consensus language if it were to be adopted as written. In crafting
the NPRM, FRA presented the RSAC consensus language in the preamble
verbatim and transparently explained its rationale for all changes it
made to the consensus language. As this was an NPRM, FRA sought comment
on the entire proposal, including those portions that FRA sought to
clarify.
    FRA recognizes that inadvertent errors do sometimes occur in
formulating a proposal and expects that interested parties would
provide comments to both FRA and all other interested parties through
the established comment process detailed in the NPRM. Given the alleged
discrepancies between the consensus language and the proposed rule, the
need to clarify the essential issues and move toward resolution of the
safety concern at hand, and the ex parte communications regarding this
proposed rule, FRA has decided to withdraw this rulemaking and will
take such further regulatory steps as safety requires. The docket for
this rulemaking has been closed. Any formal comments submitted on this
NPRM will need to be resubmitted by the commenter, if still applicable,
to a future rulemaking docket.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 7, 2008.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-18714 Filed 8-11-08; 10:00 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: March 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 13193]
[DOCID:fr14mr06-120]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Biopulse International, Inc., n/k/a Only You,
Inc., and Summit National Consolidation Group, Inc., n/k/a Superwipes,
Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Biopulse International, Inc. (n/k/a Only You, Inc.) because it has not
filed a periodic report since the period ending April 30, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Summit National Consolidation Group, Inc. (n/k/a/ Superwipes, Inc.)
because it has not filed a periodic report since the period ending
December 31, 2000.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed
companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on March 10,
2006, through 11:59 p.m. EST on March 23, 2006.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-2475 Filed 3-10-06; 12:07 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23821-23823]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10253]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0230]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Examination of Online Direct-to-Consumer Prescription
Drug Promotion

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on a series of studies, Examination of Online
Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Promotion. These studies are
designed to test different ways of presenting benefit and risk
information in online direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug Web
sites.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by June 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Examination of Online Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Promotion--
(OMB Control Number 0910--New)

    Pharmaceutical products are launched and marketed in a number of
new modalities and venues that did not exist a short time ago.
Increasingly, prescription products are promoted to consumers online in
such formats as banner ads, Web sites, and videos. The interactive
nature of the Internet allows for features not possible with
traditional media (i.e., print, radio, and television), such as
scrolling information, pop up windows, linking to more information, and
embedding videos. FDA regulations require that prescription drug
advertisements include a ``fair balance'' of information about the
benefits and risks of advertised products, both in terms of the content
and presentation of the information (21 CFR 202.1(e)(5)(ii)). All
prescription drug ads that make claims about a product must, therefore,
also include risk information in a ``balanced'' manner. Currently,
there are a number of questions surrounding how to achieve ``fair
balance'' in online DTC promotion.
    A few studies have examined how well online DTC Web sites
communicate benefit and risk information. Although content analyses
demonstrate that most Web sites include information on side effects and
contraindications (Ref. 1), risk information is often presented less
prominently and in fewer locations on the Web site (Refs. 2, 3, and 4).
Content analyses also suggest that risk information on DTC prescription
drug Web sites is often incomplete (Ref. 5) and written at very high
literacy levels (Ref. 6).
    One study examined how users interact with prescription drug Web
sites (Ref. 7). This study found that the placement of risk and benefit
information on a Web site is an important factor in whether it achieves
``fair balance.'' Specifically, participants' ability to find and
accurately recall risk information was enhanced when risk and benefit
information were presented separately and when risk information was
presented on a higher order page (i.e., on a second-level page clearly
linked from the homepage or on the homepage).
    This project is designed to test different ways of presenting
prescription drug risk and benefit information on branded drug Web
sites. This research is relevant to current policy questions and debate
and will complement qualitative research we plan to conduct on issues
surrounding social media. The original regulations that presently
determine FDA's position on DTC promotion were written at a time when
the available media for DTC promotion were print and broadcast, and the
primary audience was health care professionals. This dynamic is
shifting, and evidence is needed to support guidance development. The
series of studies described in this notice will provide data that,
along with other input and considerations, will inform the development
of future guidance.
    Design Overview: This research will be conducted in three
concurrent studies. The first three studies are experimental and the
fourth is qualitative.
    The purpose of study 1 is to investigate whether the presentation
of risk information on branded drug Web sites influences consumers'
perceptions and understanding of the risks and benefits of the product.
In study 1, we will examine the format (e.g., whether the risk
information is presented in a paragraph or as a bulleted list) and

visibility (i.e., the risk information can be seen without scrolling
down versus the risk information cannot be seen without scrolling down)
of risk information on the homepage of a prescription drug Web site.
Participants will be randomly assigned to experimental conditions in a
factorial design as follows:

                                     Table 1--Study 1 Proposed Design (2x5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Format
                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Visibility                                                                                Animated
                       Paragraph         Bullet list         Checklist       Highlighted box      spokesperson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrolling Needed   .................  .................  .................  .................  .................
No Scrolling       .................  .................  .................  .................  .................
 Needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of study 2 is to investigate how special features such
as personal testimonial videos and interactive visuals on branded drug
Web sites influence perceptions and understanding of the risks and
benefits of the product. Examples of special features we may examine
include personal testimonial video and interactive mechanism of action
visuals. We will examine these special features in the context of the
prominence of the presentation of risk information in two levels, more
prominent and less prominent. An example of a more prominent display of
risk information might involve including the risks as part of the
spoken testimonial, whereas a less prominent display may involve a
scrolling text of the risks after the animated video. We will include a
control condition in which participants view a Web page with no special
features. Participants will be randomly assigned to experimental
conditions in a factorial design as follows:

                Table 2--Study 2 Proposed Design (2x2+1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Special features
                  ------------------------------------------------------
Risk presentation       Personal         Interactive
                      testimonial          visual         Control group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent          .................  ................
Less Prominent     .................  ................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of study 3 is to investigate whether links to and
citations from external organizations referenced on the homepage of
branded drug Web sites influence consumer perceptions and understanding
of the risks and benefits of the product. We will examine two types of
information: Hyperlinks to the external organization's Web site (e.g.,
a link to the American Heart Association) and citations from an
external organization (e.g., a citation to American Heart Association
guidelines). We will also examine the type of organization (e.g.,
nonprofit or online health community). Participants will be randomly
assigned to experimental conditions in a factorial design as follows:

                                    Table 3--Study 3 Proposed Design (8x2+1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Information type
          Organization type          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Hyperlink to organization Web site                 Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government                            ....................................  ....................................
Nonprofit                             ....................................  ....................................
Health Care                           ....................................  ....................................
Health Professions Associations       ....................................  ....................................
Academic                              ....................................  ....................................
Commercial                            ....................................  ....................................
Online Health Community               ....................................  ....................................
Pharmaceutical Company-Sponsored      ....................................  ....................................
 Community
Control Group                         ....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In these three studies, participants will be randomly assigned to
view one version of a (fictitious) prescription drug Web site. After
viewing the Web site, participants will answer a series of questions
about the drug. We will test how the manipulations affect outcomes such
as perceived efficacy, perceived risk, behavioral intention, and
accurate understanding of the benefit and risk information. In each
study, the fictitious prescription drug will be for the treatment of a
high prevalence medical condition and modeled on an actual drug used to
treat that condition. Participants will be consumers who have been
diagnosed with the medical condition of interest. For instance, the
medical conditions may be high cholesterol and seasonal allergies for
study 1, depression and acid reflux disease for study 2, and high blood
pressure for study 3.
    For studies 1 to 3, interviews are expected to last no more than 25
minutes (the questionnaire is available upon request). This will be a
one-time (rather than annual) collection of information.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 4--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average
                                     Number of       Number of     Total annual     burden per
            Activity                respondents    responses per     responses     response  (in    Total hours
                                                    respondent                      hours) \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener........................          20,000               1          20,000            2/60             667
Pretests........................           1,200               1           1,200           20/60             400
Study 1.........................           4,000               1           4,000           25/60           1,667
Study 2.........................           2,000               1           2,000           25/60             834
Study 3.........................           3,600               1           3,600           25/60           1,500
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           5,068
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.
\2\ Burden estimates of less than 1 hour are expressed as a fraction of an hour in the format ``[number of
  minutes per response]/60''.

I. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

1. Macias, W. and L. Stavchansky Lewis, ``How Well Do Direct-to-
Consumer (DTC) Prescription Drug Web Sites Meet FDA Guidelines and
Public Policy Concerns?'' Health Marketing Quarterly, vol. 22, pp.
45-71, 2005.
2. Hicks, K. E., M. S. Wogalter, and W. J. Vigilante, Jr.,
``Placement of Benefits and Risks in Prescription Drug
Manufacturers' Web Sites and Information Source Expectations,'' Drug
Information Journal, vol. 39, pp. 267-278, 2005.
3. Huh, J. and B. J. Cude, ``Is the Information `Fair and Balanced'
in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Web Sites?'' Journal of
Health Communication, vol. 9, pp. 529-540, 2004.
4. Sheehan, K. B., ``Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Branded Drug Web Sites
Risk Presentation and Implications for Public Policy,'' Journal of
Advertising, vol. 36, pp. 123-135, 2007.
5. Davis, J. J., E. Cross, and J. Crowley, ``Pharmaceutical Web
Sites and the Communication of Risk Information,'' Journal of Health
Communication, vol. 12, pp. 29-39, 2007.
6. Naik, S. and S. P. Desselle, ``An Evaluation of Cues,
Inducements, and Readability of Information on Drug-Specific Web
Sites,'' Journal of Pharmaceutical Marketing and Management, vol.
17, pp. 61-81, 2007.
7. Vigilante, Jr., W. J., and M. S. Wogalter, ``Assessing Risk and
Benefit Communication in Direct-to-Consumer Medication Web Site
Advertising,'' Drug Information Journal, vol. 39, pp. 3-12, 2005.

    Dated: April 22, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-10253 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80236-80239]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31604]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0625; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-044-AD;
Amendment 39-18343; AD 2015-25-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain

Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A,
CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
report of an aft equipment bay fire due to chafing and subsequent
arcing of the integrated drive generator (IDG) power cables.
Additionally, we have received several reports of broken support
brackets of the hydraulic line. This AD requires a one-time inspection
of the IDG power cables for chafing, and for any cracked or broken
support bracket of the hydraulic line; and corrective actions if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct broken support
brackets of the hydraulic lines, which could result in inadequate
clearance between the IDG power cables and hydraulic lines and chafing
of the IDG power cables, and consequent high energy arcing and an
uncontrolled fire in the aft equipment bay.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 28, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 28,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0625 or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9,
Canada; telephone 514-85-5000; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0625.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Service Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and
CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on September 17, 2014 (79 FR 55673).
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-05, dated January 20, 2014 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    There has been one reported case on the CL-600-2B19 aeroplane of
an aft equipment bay fire occurring due to arcing of chafed
integrated drive generator (IDG) power cables. Additionally, the
hydraulic line support brackets located at the fuselage station (FS)
672 and FS 682 on a CL-600-2B19 aeroplane could result in inadequate
clearance between the IDG power cables and hydraulic lines,
potentially resulting in chafing of the IDG power cables. Chafed IDG
power cables can generate high energy arcing, which can result in an
uncontrolled fire in the aft equipment bay.
    It was found that a similar configuration exists on models CL-
600-2A12 and CL-600-2B16 aeroplanes. Therefore, a similar unsafe
condition exists.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the detailed visual inspection and,
if required, rectification of the IDG power cables and hydraulic
line support bracket.

    Required corrective actions include repair or replacement of the
IDG power cable if any chafing is found, and replacement of any cracked
or broken support bracket. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-
0625-0003.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 55673, September 17, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Correct Typographical Error

    Bombardier asked that one of the service bulletin references
identified in the ``Relevant Service Information'' section of the NPRM
(79 FR 55673, September 17, 2014) be changed to correct a typographical
error. Bombardier Service Bulletin ``604-0625,'' as identified in the
``Relevant Service Information'' section, should be identified as
Bombardier Service Bulletin ``601-0625.''
    We agree with the commenter for the reason provided, and we have
changed this reference to correctly specify Bombardier Service Bulletin
601-0625 throughout this final rule.

Request To Clarify Credit Provisions

    Bombardier asked that we clarify the language in paragraph (h) of
the proposed AD, ``Credit for Previous Actions.'' Bombardier stated
that the current language may cause some confusion because the content
is not clear.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concern, and we provide the
following clarification for the credit language used in paragraph (h)
of this AD. Paragraph (h) of this AD matches the intent of the last two
paragraphs in the ``Corrective Actions'' section of Canadian AD CF-
2014-05, dated January 20, 2014. Both this FAA AD and the Canadian AD
give credit for accomplishing Bombardier Service Bulletins 605-24-007,
604-24-026, and 601-0625, all dated September 18, 2012, but only if
Service Request for Product Support Action (SRPSA) 27512, SRPSA 30806,
SRPSA 32727, SRPSA 32864, or SRPSA 33161 has not been done.

Clarification of Airplane Models

    We have included the airplane models identified in the service
information in the ``Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51''
section, and paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD (79 FR
55673, September 17, 2014), for clarification.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 55673, September 17, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 55673, September 17, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information:
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-24-007, Revision 01, dated
January 13,

2014 (for Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes (CL-604 Variant));
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-24-026, Revision 01, dated
January 13, 2014 (for Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes (CL-604 Variant));
and
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0625, Revision 01, dated
January 13, 2014 (for Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) and CL-600-2B16
airplanes (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants)).
    This service information describes procedures for a one-time
inspection of the IDG power cables for chafing, and for any cracked or
broken support bracket of the hydraulic line; and corrective actions if
necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 95 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD on U.S. operators to be $8,075, or $85 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition repair of chafed power cables or
cracked or broken support brackets, as specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0625; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2015-25-05 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18343; Docket No. FAA-
2014-0625; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-044-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective January 28, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in
any category.
    (1) Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes, serial numbers 3001
through 3066 inclusive.
    (2) Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes,
serial numbers 5001 through 5194 inclusive.
    (3) Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers
5301 through 5665 inclusive, and 5701 through 5934 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of an aft equipment bay fire
due to chafing and subsequent arcing of the integrated drive
generator (IDG) power cables. Additionally, we have received several
reports of broken support brackets of the hydraulic lines. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct broken support brackets of the
hydraulic lines, which could result in inadequate clearance between
the IDG power cables and hydraulic lines and chafing of the IDG
power cables, and consequent high energy arcing and an uncontrolled
fire in the aft equipment bay.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) One-Time Inspection and Corrective Actions

    Within 400 flight hours or 18 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform a one-time detailed
inspection of the IDG power cables for chafing between the cables
and the adjacent hydraulic and pneumatic lines, and for any cracked
or broken support bracket of the hydraulic lines, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of
this AD. If any chafing of the power cables or any cracked or broken
support bracket is found, before further flight, repair or replace,
as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-24-007, Revision 01, dated
January 13, 2014 (for Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes (CL-604 Variant)).
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-24-026, Revision 01, dated
January 13, 2014 (for Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes (CL-604 Variant)).
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0625, Revision 01, dated
January 13, 2014 (for Model Cl-600-2A12 (CL-601) and CL-600-2B16
airplanes (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants)).

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for action required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if the

conditions specified in both paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD
are met.
    (1) The action was performed before the effective date of this
AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-24-007, Bombardier Service
Bulletin 604-24-026, or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0625, all
dated September 18, 2012. This service information is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) The action specified in Service Request for Product Support
Action (SRPSA) 27512, SRPSA 30806, SRPSA 32727, SRPSA 32864, or
SRPSA 33161 has not been done.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the New York ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
516-794-553. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada
Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-05, dated January
20, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0625-0003.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-24-007, Revision 01, dated
January 13, 2014.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-24-026, Revision 01, dated
January 13, 2014.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0625, Revision 01, dated
January 13, 2014.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514 855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on December 8, 2015.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-31604 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24015-24017]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10308]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-24-000]

Ryckman Creek Resources, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Ryckman Creek Storage Field
Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Ryckman Creek Storage Field Project proposed by Ryckman Creek
Resources, LLC (Ryckman) in the above-referenced docket. Ryckman
requests authorization to construct and operate the Project, which
involves converting an existing partially depleted oil field, known as
the Ryckman Creek (Nugget Unit), into a new interstate natural gas
storage field. The Project is located approximately 15 miles northeast
of Evanston in Uinta County, Wyoming.
    Concurrent with the development of the gas storage field, Ryckman
proposes to initiate enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations of the oil
reserves remaining in the Nugget Unit. The construction and operation
of the EOR facilities would be under the jurisdiction of the Wyoming
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, as well as subject to the
regulations of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), where
applicable.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Ryckman Creek Storage Field Project
in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of
the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The BLM participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of
the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the
proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The BLM has participated
as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA to satisfy its
respective NEPA and planning responsibilities since the Project would
cross federal land under the jurisdiction of the Kemmerer Field Office
in Wyoming. Under sections 17 and 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of
1920, (30 U.S.C. 185(f) and 226(m)) the BLM has the authority to issue
underground gas storage agreements and right-of-way

grants for all affected federal lands. This would be in accordance with
Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 2800, 2880, and 5105.5
subsequent 2800, 2880, and 3160-11 Manuals, and Handbook 2801-1. As a
cooperating agency, the BLM would adopt the EA per Title 40 CFR 1506.3
to meet its responsibilities under NEPA in considering Ryckman Creek's
application for a Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use Permit for the
portion of the Project on federal land, by the Kemmerer Field Office,
High Desert District; and the issuance of an Underground Gas Storage
Agreement by the Wyoming State Office, Reservoir Management Group,
Casper, Wyoming. The decision record will be signed following the FERC
determination of public convenience and necessity for this project, and
posted on the BLM NEPA Web site at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/kfo.html.
    The proposed Ryckman Creek Storage Field Project includes the
following:
     Drill and complete up to six horizontal injection/
withdrawal (I/W) wells;
     Re-enter up to two well for use as observation wells;
     Re-enter/re-complete up to two saltwater disposal wells;
     Modify the existing Canyon Creek Compressor Station and
its ancillary facilities modified by the addition of up to eight new
electric motor-driven compressors with up to 33,000 horsepower (hp) for
a total of up to 55,000 hp of compression;
     Install three bi-directional meters for the
interconnections with the Kern River, Questar, and Overthrust
pipelines;
     Construct a central gas/liquids separation and storage
facility (Ryckman Plant) where all of the pipelines meet, containing
oil, water and gas handling, and natural gas liquids (NGL) storage
equipment; and it would also contain a small electric-drive compressor
to compress casinghead gas for use in the (EOR) operations;
     Construct approximately 4.03 mile 16-inch diameter header
pipeline to connect the Ryckman Plant to the Canyon Creek Compressor
Station;
     Construct approximately 4.8 miles of new 8-inch diameter
storage field flowlines;
     Install amine, triethylene glycol (TEG) and mole sieve
dehydration, NGL extraction, hydrocarbon dew point control and nitrogen
rejection unit (NRU) process equipment at the Canyon Creek Compressor
Station;
     Re-enter/re-complete up to 12 existing vertical production
wells for use in the EOR operations;
     Re-use existing production well gathering system for use
in the EOR operations;
     Construct an approximately 0.9 mile 3-inch diameter NGL
pipeline from the Canyon Creek Compression Station to a third-party
liquids pipeline.
     Construct a 4.03-mile-long electric power line from the
138 kV electric substation at the Canyon Creek Compressor Station to
the Ryckman Plant; and
     Use of temporary laydown and support facilities and
ancillary facilities necessary to operate and maintain the Project.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the
EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street,
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to
this proceeding.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to
a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC
receives your comments in Washington, DC on or before May 23, 2011.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (CP11-24-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated
eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an
easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments
on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you
can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply
filing comments will not serve to make the commenter a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors
have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP11-24-000). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date
range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Dated: April 22, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10308 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 61696-61697]
[DOCID:fr31oc07-138]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56703; File No. SR-CHX-2007-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rules Relating to the
Execution of Odd Lot Market Orders

October 25, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 2, 2007, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by CHX. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to provide that market odd
lot orders would be executed like round lot orders in the Exchange's
Matching System (i.e., executed as if they were subject to Regulation
NMS Rule 611 \3\). Below is the text of the proposed rule change.
Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in
[brackets].\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \4\ The Exchange has consented to the removal of an extra
quotation mark from the current text of Article 20, Rule 5(a) of the
CHX Rules. See E-mail from Ellen Neely, President and General
Counsel, CHX to David Michehl, Special Counsel, Division of Market
Regulation, Commission on October 23, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 20
Operation of Chx Matching System
* * * * *
    Prevention of Trade-throughs
    Rule 5.a. An inbound order for at least a round lot is not eligible
for execution on the Exchange if its execution would cause an improper
trade-through of another ITS market or, when Reg NMS is implemented for
a security, if its execution would be improper under Rule 611 (but not
including the exception set out in Rule 611(b)(8)) (together an
``improper trade-through''['']). As described in Interpretation and
Policy .03, if the execution of all or part of an inbound order for at
least a round lot on the Exchange would cause an improper trade-
through, that order (or the portion of that order that would cause a
trade-through) shall be routed to another appropriate market or, if
designated as ``do not route,'' automatically cancelled; provided,
however, that if an undisplayed order is resting in the Matching System
and the execution of an inbound round lot order (that is not an IOC or
FOK order) against the undisplayed resting order would cause an
improper trade-through, the resting order shall be cancelled to the
extent necessary to allow the inbound order to be executed or quoted.
    b. Inbound odd lot limit orders and odd lot crosses shall be
eligible for execution on the Exchange even if the execution would
trade through another market's bid or offer. Inbound odd lot market
orders shall be executed, for purposes of this Rule, as if they were
round lot orders and subject to the requirements of paragraph (a)
above.
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed

any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Under the Exchange's existing rules, odd lot orders execute in the
Matching System without regard to the protected quotations of other
markets.\5\ The Exchange states that this is because such orders are
not subject to the Regulation NMS Order Protection Rule and can trade
through better prices in other markets.\6\ Through this filing, the
Exchange proposes to amend its rules to provide that market odd lot
orders would execute like round lot orders (i.e., they would execute as
if they were subject to the Regulation NMS Order Protection Rule),
while odd lot limit orders and odd lot crosses would continue to
execute through better prices on other markets.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CHX Rules, Article 20, Rule 5(b).
    \6\ The Exchange states that its handling of the execution of
odd lot orders is consistent with the requirements of Regulation
NMS. See Division of Market Regulation: Responses to Frequently
Asked Questions Concerning Rule 611 and Rule 610 of Regulation NMS,
FAQ 7.03 (confirming that Rule 611 does not apply to odd lot
orders).
    \7\ The Exchange believes that a participant that submits an odd
lot cross seeks to have that order executed at a particular price,
without regard to prices in other markets. Similarly, if a
participant submits an odd lot limit order, that participant likely
only seeks the protection of the order's limit price and does not
anticipate that the order would be protected against better prices
in other markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal will provide appropriate
protections to odd lot market orders, while allowing participants to
choose to have odd lot limit orders and odd lot crosses executed at
other prices.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Odd lot market orders that would trade through the protected
quotations of other markets would be rejected from the Exchange's
Matching System and either routed to another appropriate market or,
if designated as ``do not route,'' automatically cancelled. See CHX
Rules, Article 20, Rule 5(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b). The proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ because it would promote
just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and
protect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest by
allowing market odd lot orders to be executed like round lot orders in
the Exchange's Matching System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change; or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CHX-2007-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2007-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2007-22 and should be
submitted on or before November 21, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-21384 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 6213-6214]
[DOCID:fr05fe09-77]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2001-10570; FMCSA-
2002-12294; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2006-24783]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 12 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has reviewed the
comments submitted in response to the previous announcement and
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety
maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8301, Washington, DC
20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The comment
period ended on January 12, 2009.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 12 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Robert W. Brown, David D. Bungori, Jr., Benny J.
Burke, David R. Cox, Gary T. Hicks, Robert T. Hill, John C. McLaughlin,
Kenneth D. Sisk, David W. Skillman, Rick N. Ulrich, Stephen D. Vice and
Larry D. Wedekind.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: January 29, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-2432 Filed 2-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 45208]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18400]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request. National Fire Academy Long-Term Evaluation Form for
Supervisors and National Fire Academy Long-Term Evaluation for
Students/Trainees.

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 60-day notice and request for comments; revision of a
previously approved information collection; OMB No. 1660-0039; FEMA
Form 078-0-2A, National Fire Academy Long-Term Evaluation Student/
Trainee; FEMA Form 078-0-2, National Fire Academy Long-Term Evaluation
Supervisors.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice seeks comments concerning the long-term evaluation forms
used to evaluate all National Fire Academy resident training.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2014-0018. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Regulatory Affairs Division,
Office of Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE,
Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dawn Long, Statistician, (301) 447-
1488, for additional information. You may contact the Records
Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of
information at facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFA is mandated under the Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-498) to provide training
and education to the Nation's fire service and emergency service
personnel. The state of-the-art programs offered by the NFA serve as
models of excellence and State and local fire service agencies rely
heavily on the curriculum to train their personnel. To maintain the
quality of these training programs, it is critical that courses be
evaluated after students have had the opportunity to apply the
knowledge and skills gained from their training.

Collection of Information

    Title: National Fire Academy Long-Term Evaluation Form for
Supervisors and National Fire Academy Long-Term Evaluation for
Students/Trainees.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    FEMA Forms: OMB No. 1660-0039; FEMA Form 078-0-2A, National Fire
Academy Long-Term Evaluation Student/Trainee; FEMA Form 078-0-2,
National Fire Academy Long-Term Evaluation Supervisors.
    Abstract: The National Fire Academy Long-Term Evaluation Forms will
be used to evaluate all National Fire Academy (NFA) on-campus resident
training courses. Course graduates and their supervisors will be asked
to evaluate the impact of the training on both individual job
performance and the performance of the fire and emergency response
department where the student works. The data provided by students and
supervisors is used to update existing NFA course materials and to
develop new courses that reflect the emerging issues/needs of the
Nation's fire service.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal government.
    Number of Respondents: Estimated 3,000 total annual respondents.
    Number of Responses: Estimated 3,000 total annual responses.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 405 burden hours.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Data collection activity/        Number of     Frequency of     Hour burden       Annual       Total annual
           instrument               respondents      responses     per response      responses     burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NFA Long Term Evaluation                   1,500               1             .17           1,500             255
 Students/Trainees/FEMA Form 078-
 0-2A...........................
NFA Long Term Evaluation                   1,500               1              .1           1,500             150
 Supervisors/FEMA Form 078-0-2..
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           3,000  ..............  ..............           3,000             405
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Cost: There is no annual start-up or capital costs.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: July 10, 2014.
Loretta Cassatt,
Branch Chief, Records, Mission Support Bureau, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2014-18400 Filed 8-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-45-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63265-63266]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22150]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF20-10-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 29, 2020, Western Area Power
Administration submitted tariff filing: Extension of Western Area Power
Administration Formula Rates for Central Arizona Project Transmission
Service--Rate Order No. WAPA-193 to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of

intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 29, 2020.

    Dated: October 1, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22150 Filed 10-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28588-28590]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11255]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0003]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 75 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective May 16, 2014. The exemptions expire
on May 16, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On March 14, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (79 FR 14571). That notice listed 75 applicants' case histories.
The 75 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 75 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:

    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red,
green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).

    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 75
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including retinal scar, amblyopia, complete loss of vision,
retinal detachment, cataract, macular hole, macular edema, corneal
scarring, macular degeneration, aphakia, prosthetic eye, strabismic
amblyopia, coloboma, optic atrophy, refractive amblyopia, ischemic
optic neuropathy, congenital esotropia, optic nerve damage, congenital
neuropathy, Coat's disease, myopia, strabismus, glaucoma, exfoliative
glaucoma, central vision decrease, retinal artery occlusion, and scar
tissue. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. Forty-eight of the applicants were either born with their
vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The twenty-seven individuals that sustained their vision conditions
as adults have had it for a period of 2 to 55 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to

evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 75 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from 18 months
to 54 years. In the past 3 years, one of the drivers was involved in a
crash and three were convicted for moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the March 14, 2014
notice (79 FR 14571).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 75 applicants, one of the driver was involved in a crash and three
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 75 applicants listed in the notice of March
14, 2014 (79 FR 14571).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 75 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy

of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments are
discussed below.
    Sharon Massey is in favor of granting Hurley H. Bacon an exemption.
    Angelo Pais and Alice Pais are in favor of granting Hurley H. Bacon
an exemption.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 75 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Luis A. Agudo (MN), Ilidio G. Almeida (NJ), Roger E. Anderson
(TX), Pablo Ayala (FL), Hurley H. Bacon (NM), Dmitry D. Bayda (WA),
Marvin J. Bensend Jr. (MS), Ronald L. Bird (UT), John R. Bohman (OH),
Dale A. Braton (MN), Michael R. Burnau (MO), Balwinder S. Chatha (CA),
Eddie D. Coggins (NC), Cody W. Christian (OK), Ronald G. Cote (VT),
Michael T. Deaton (KY), Gilbert Deprey (ME), Billy D. Devine (WA),
James G. Donze (MO), Kerry M. Dotson (WA), Jeffrey D. Duncan (IN),
Charles R. Early (IN), Scott E. Elliot (NH), Frank J. Faria (CA),
Raleigh K. Franklin (UT), Dennis A. Feather (FL), Michael Gargano (FL),
Nicholas C. Georgen (IA), Dean D. Hawks (MN), Peter E. Jacobs (FL),
Mark J. Jochim (WA), Robert E. Johnston, Jr. (WA), Alfred R. Kallaus
III (CA), Gregory J. Kuhn (NE), David W. Leach (IL), Jason S. Logue
(GA), Jesse Long, Jr. (GA), John L. Lucas (NC), David F. Martin (NJ),
Martin L. Mayes (GA), Donald L. McCraw, Jr. (VA), Daniel A. McNabb, Jr.
(KS), Phillip L. Mello (CA), Roberto C. Mendez (TX), Clinton F.
Merithew (NE), Ronald S. Milkowski (NJ), Robert L. Murray (IL), Jeffrey
L. Oswald (PA), Barry L. Pylant (GA), Steve W. Quenzer (SD), Bradley W.
Reed (AL), Jamey D. Reed (TX), Erik M. Rice (TX), Thomas A. Rients
(IL), Harry L. Ross (KS), Ricky D. Rostad (MN), Chad M. St. Mary (MN),
Tatum R. Schmidt (IA), Harry J. Scholl (PA), Jacob A. Shaffer (PA),
Carl D. Short (MO), Michael W. Slief (KS), Thomas G. Smedema (WI),
James S. Smith (AR), Steven S. Smith, Jr. (PA), Thomas W. Smith (PA),
Richard H. Solum (MN), Scott R. Sorensen (CA), Robert W. Stewart (MO),
Samuel M. Stoltzfus (PA), Elston L. Taylor (VA), Sherman L. Taylor
(FL), Robert E. Troutman (NC), Dale E. Williams (TX), and Steven E.
Young (MO) from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject
to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: May 6, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-11255 Filed 5-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


	                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                             WASHINGTON, DC

    Served:  July 30, 2004

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

2004 U.S.-Mexico Combination Service Proceeding

DOCKET OST-2004-18692

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

NOTICE

By Order 2004-7-17, July 21, 2004, we instituted the 2004 U.S.-Mexico
Combination Service Proceeding, Docket OST-2004-18692, to select one
primary and one backup carrier, to provide foreign air transportation of
persons, property, and mail over the following transborder routes:
Denver-Cancun, Denver-Puerto Vallarta, Detroit-Cancun, and St.
Louis-Cancun.  We consolidated the already-filed applications into this
proceeding.  In addition, the Order established a procedural timetable
for this case, calling for Petitions for Reconsideration, July 28;
Answers to Petitions, August 2; Direct Exhibits, August 16; Rebuttal
Exhibits, August 30; and Briefs, September 7.

On July 27, 2004, Frontier Airlines, Inc. filed a petition for
reconsideration requesting additional time on the procedural schedule.
The carrier states that the time schedule listed in the Order involves a
time period in which carrier representatives are focusing on a variety
of planning and scheduling issues including developing winter schedules.
 In addition, they are also responding to rapidly changing industry
conditions.  Therefore, Frontier recommends that the procedural schedule
be slightly modified by extending each of the dates stated above so that
Petitions for Reconsideration, no change; Answers to Petitions, August
9; Direct Exhibits, August 23; Rebuttal Exhibits, September 7; and
Briefs, September 17.

In view of the immediate availability of the route rights, and in light
of the carrier interest to commence services on these routes as soon as
possible, and given our stated intent to process this case on an
expedited procedural schedule, we have decided not to change the
requirement that answers to petitions for reconsideration be filed as
stated above (i.e., August 2, 2004).  However, we will defer action on
the balance of the request until after receipt of answers to the
petition.

Therefore, acting under authority assigned in 14 CFR 385.13(p), we deny
the request to modify the due date for the answers to petitions for
reconsiderations and require that answers to the petitions be filed
August 2.  We defer a decision on the balance of the request of
Frontier.

We will serve this notice by electronic mail on all parties to this
proceeding, and hereby authorize service of documents by facsimile and
by electronic mail.

By:

					PAUL L. GRETCH

Director, Office of International Aviation

(SEAL)

Dated:  July 30, 2004

An electronic version of this noticer is available on the World Wide Web
at

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp

 Order 2004-7-17, at 4.


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 05/15/2008 12:19 PM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Marion Hoyer/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Glenn Passavant/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Orlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Clark/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Corrected avgas memos

Great; thanks - I have sent them out

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:19 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Corrected avgas memos

Heidi,

I was just about to send these to you when I saw your note.  Here are

the corrected memos to discuss at 2 PM.

These are the corrected versions of the two memos on avgas Pb that had

mistakes.

(See attached file: Memo to Pb NAAQS docket for Revised Airport Avgas

Inventory using 2002 data corrected 14 May 08B.pdf)(See attached file:

Memo to Pb RIA docket for Avgas Inventory Development May 12 08 FNL.pdf)