[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38408-38411]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0114]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Macy's Fourth of July Fireworks
Spectator Vessels Viewing Areas, Hudson River, New York, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation on the Hudson River in the vicinity of New York, NY, for the
Macy's July 4th fireworks display. This temporary special local
regulation is intended to restrict certain vessels from designated
portions of the Hudson River during the fireworks event. This
regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waters by controlling vessel movement and establishing public viewing
areas for the fireworks event.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 p.m. on July 4, 2010 until 11:30
p.m. on July 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0114 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0114 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail LTJG Eunice James, Sector New York
Waterways Management Division, Marine Events Branch. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because sufficient information regarding the
event was not received in time to publish a NPRM followed by a final
rule before the effective date, thus making the publication of a NPRM
impractical. A delay or cancellation of the event in order to allow for
a notice and comment period is contrary to the public interest in
having this event occur on July 4 as scheduled.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators
and vessels during the event and immediate action is necessary to
prevent possible loss of life or property. Also, a delay or
cancellation of the fireworks event in order to allow for publication
in the Federal Register is contrary to the public's interest in having
this event occur as scheduled.

Basis and Purpose

    This temporary special local regulation is necessary to ensure the
safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with fireworks
display. Based on the inherent hazards associated with fireworks, the
Captain of the Port New York has determined that fireworks launches
proximate to

watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The
combination of increased numbers of recreation vessels, congested
waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and debris
falling into the water has the potential to result in serious injuries
or fatalities. This special local regulation temporarily establishes a
regulated area to restrict vessel movement around the location of the
launch platforms to reduce the risk associated with the launch of
fireworks.

Discussion of Rule

    MACY's is sponsoring their 34th Annual Macy's Fourth of July
Fireworks on the waters of the Hudson River. This temporary special
local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and
vessels from hazards associated with the fireworks display.
    The fireworks display will occur from 9:20 p.m. until 9:50 p.m. In
order to coordinate the safe movement of vessels within the area and to
ensure that the area is clear of unauthorized persons and vessels
before and immediately after the fireworks launch, this rule is
effective and will be enforced from 7 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4,
2010.
    If the event is cancelled due to inclement weather, then this
special local regulation will be effective from 7 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
on July 5, 2010.
    The special local regulation will encompass all waters of the
Hudson River south of a line drawn from Pier 11A, Weehawken, NJ, to
West 70th Street, New York, NY, and north of a line drawn from the
northwest corner of Pier 40, New York, NY to a point at position
40[deg]43[min]51.2[sec] N, 074[deg]01[min]41.5[sec] W, Jersey City
Pier, NJ. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983
(NAD 83).
    The Captain of the Port New York will establish five limited access
areas within the boundaries of the special local regulation. Access to
these areas will be restricted to vessels of a certain size. The five
limited access areas are: (1) A ``buffer zone'' around the fireworks
launch barges, designated area ALPHA, limited to all vessels tending
the barges; (2) a ``spectator area'' designated BRAVO in which access
is limited to vessels less than 20 meters in length (65.6ft); (3)
``spectator area'' designated CHARLIE in which access is limited to
vessels greater than 20 meters in length (65.6ft); (4) ``spectator
area'' designated DELTA in which access is limited to vessels greater
than 20 meters in length (65.6ft); and (5) a ``spectator area''
designated ECHO in which access is limited to vessels less than 20
meters in length (65.6ft).
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port New York or the designated on-scene
representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the
regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port New York, or the designated on-scene representative. The Captain
of the Port New York or the on-scene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16.
    Public notifications will be made prior to the event via the Local
Notice to Mariners, and marine information broadcasts.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This determination is based on the limited time that vessels will
be restricted from the fireworks display area. The temporary safety
zone will only be in effect for approximately four hours during the
evening hours. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to
mariners from the zone's activation as the event has been extensively
advertised in the public. Also, affected mariners may request
authorization from the Captain of the Port New York or the designated
on-scene representative to transit the zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the Hudson River, in the vicinity of
New York City, NY from 7 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4th, 2010.
    This temporary special local regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only four hours on a
single day during the late evening for this fireworks event. Although
the special local regulation will apply to the entire width of the
river, traffic will be allowed to pass through the area with the
permission of the Captain of the Port New York or the designated on-
scene representative. Before the effective period, we will issue
maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct

effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law
or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have
analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does
not have implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of
the Instruction. This rule involves the promulgation of a special local
regulation regulating vessel traffic on a portion of the lower Hudson
River during the launching of fireworks. An environmental analysis
checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T0144 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T0144  Special Local Regulation; Macy's July Fourth
Fireworks Spectator Vessel Viewing Area, Hudson River, New York, NY.

    (a) Regulated Area. The regulated area includes all waters of the
Hudson River within the following points (NAD 83): all navigable waters
of the Hudson River bounded by a line drawn east from approximate
position 40[deg]46'35.43'' N, 074[deg]00'7.53'' W in New Jersey, to a
point in approximate position 40[deg]46'16.98'' N, 073[deg]59'52.34'' W
in New York, thence south along the Manhattan shoreline to approximate
position 40[deg]44'48.98'' N, 074[deg]00'41.06'' W, then west to
approximate position 40[deg]44'55.91'' N, 074[deg]01'24.94'' W, then
north along the New Jersey shoreline and back to the point of origin.
    (1) Area ALPHA: all navigable waters of the Hudson River bounded by
a line drawn east from approximate position 40[deg]46'35.43'' N,
074[deg]00'7.53'' W in New Jersey, to a point in approximate position
40[deg]46'16.98'' N, 073[deg]59'52.34'' W in New York, thence south
along the Manhattan shoreline to approximate position 40[deg]44'48.98''
N, 074[deg]00'41.06'' W, then west to approximate position
40[deg]44'55.91'' N, 074[deg]01'24.94'' W; then north along the New
Jersey shoreline and back to the point of origin. (NAD 83).
    (2) Area BRAVO: All navigable waters of the Hudson River bounded by
a line drawn east from approximate position 40[deg]46'35.43'' N,
074[deg]00'37.53'' W in New Jersey, across the Hudson River to a point
in approximate position 40[deg]46'16.98'' N, 073[deg]59'52.34'' W in
New York, thence north along the Manhattan shoreline to approximate
position 40[deg]46'31.38'' N, 073[deg]59' 37.46'' W, then west to
approximate position 40[deg]46'47.71'' N, 074[deg]00'19.73'' W, then
south along the New Jersey shoreline and back to the point of
origin.(NAD 83).
    (3) Area CHARLIE: All navigable waters of the Hudson River bounded
by a line drawn east from a point in New Jersey in approximate position
40[deg]46'47.71'' N, 074[deg]00'19.73'' W in New Jersey to approximate
position 40[deg]46'31.38'' N, 073[deg]59'37.46'' W in New York, thence
north along the Manhattan shoreline to approximate position
40[deg]46'47.60'' N, 073[deg]59'22.26'' W, then west to a point in New
Jersey in

approximate position 40[deg]47'03.39'' N, 074[deg] 00'00.19'' W, then
south along the New Jersey shoreline back to the point of origin.(NAD
83).
    (4) Area DELTA: All navigable waters of the Hudson River bounded by
a line drawn east from approximate position 40[deg]44' 55.56'' N,
074[deg]01' 21.18'' W in New Jersey, to a point in New York in
approximate position 40[deg]44' 48.98'' N, 074[deg]00'41.06'' W, then
south along the Manhattan shoreline to approximate position
40[deg]44'21.84'' N, 074[deg]00'41.78'' N, then west to a point in
approximate position 40[deg]44'23.91'' N, 074[deg]01'29.05'' W in
Hoboken, NJ, then north along the New Jersey shoreline back to the
point of origin.(NAD 83).
    (5) Area ECHO: All navigable waters of the Hudson River bounded by
a line drawn east from a point in New Jersey in approximate position
40[deg]44'23.91'' N, 074[deg]01'29.05'' W; to approximate position
40[deg]44'21.84'' N, 074[deg]00'41.78'' W; then south along the
Manhattan shoreline to approximate position 40[deg]43'49.63'' N,
074[deg]00'49.65'' W; then west to a point in 40[deg]43'50.60'' N,
074[deg]01'51.00'' W in Hoboken New Jersey, then north along the New
Jersey shoreline back to the point of origin.(NAD 83).
    (b) Special local regulations. (1) In accordance with the general
regulations is Sec.  100.35 of this part, entry into, transiting, or
anchoring within the regulated areas is prohibited unless the vessel is
in an area designated for vessels of that size or entry is otherwise
authorized by the Captain of the Port New York, or the designated on-
scene representative.
    (2) Vessels are authorized by the Captain of the Port New York to
enter areas of this special location regulation in accordance with the
following restrictions:
    (i) Area ALPHA is restricted to vessels engaged in conducting the
fireworks display and tending to the launch barges.
    (ii) Area BRAVO access is limited to vessels greater than 20 meters
(65.6ft) in length.
    (iii) Area CHARLIE access is limited to vessels less than 20 meters
(65.6ft) in length.
    (iv) Area DELTA access is limited to vessels greater than 20 meters
(65.6ft) in length.
    (v) Area ECHO access is limited to vessels less than 20 meters
(65.6ft) in length.
    (3) All persons and vessels in the regulated areas shall comply
with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port New York
or the designated on-scene representative. On-scene representatives
comprise commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard.
Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed
as directed.
    (c) Enforcement Period: This section will be enforced from 7 p.m.
to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2010, and if the fireworks display is
postponed, it will be effective from 7 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on July 5,
2010.

    Dated: June 14, 2010.
R.R. O'Brien, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2010-16262 Filed 6-30-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 47952]
[FR Doc No: C1-2018-18781]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83936; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the First Trust
Long Duration Opportunities ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E

August 24, 2018.

Correction

    In notice document 2018-18781, appearing on pages 44312 through
44320, in the issue of Thursday, August 30, 2018, make the following
correction:
    On page 44320, in the second column, in the first paragraph, in the
last row, ``October 1, 2018'' should read ``September 20, 2018''.

[FR Doc. C1-2018-18781 Filed 9-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 39 (Monday, February 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10074-10077]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-3981; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-053-AD;
Amendment 39-18417; AD 2016-04-23]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This AD requires an
inspection of the station 337 (door number 1) outboard partitions for a
tie rod and quick release pins, and to ensure that both partition
supports are engaged in the structural bracket at each outboard
partition, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by
reports of missing right and left outboard partition tie rods at door
number 1. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct partitions with
missing tie rods or release pins or with supports that are not engaged
in the structural bracket. These partitions could come loose during a
high-acceleration event and strike the flight attendant seats in the
door 1 location, causing serious injury to the seat occupants, or could
affect safe egress from the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective March 15, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 15,
2016.
    We must receive comments on this AD by April 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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 2016-
3981.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
3981; 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 Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We have received reports of missing right and left outboard
partition tie rods at station 337 (door number 1) on Model 787-8
airplanes as a result of a manufacturing escape (i.e., insufficient
documentation to show engineering details). We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct partitions with missing tie rods or release pins or
with supports that are not engaged in the structural bracket. These
partitions could come loose during a high-acceleration event and strike
the flight attendant seats in the door 1 location, causing serious
injury to the seat occupants, or could affect safe egress from the
airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250081-00, Issue
001, dated December 9, 2014. The service bulletin describes procedures
for an inspection of the station 337 outboard partitions for a tie rod
and quick release pins, and also to determine that both partition
supports are engaged in the structural bracket, and corrective actions.
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.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between the AD and the Service Information.''
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this AD. ``Corrective
actions'' are actions that correct or address any condition found.
Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

Differences Between the AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250081-00, Issue 001, dated
December 9, 2014, specifies to do the general visual inspection ``in
accordance with the Tasks in Table 6'' of the service information.
However ``Table 6'' does not exist. The tasks are identified in Table 4
of the service information. Therefore, this AD requires that the
inspection be done in accordance with the tasks in Table 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-
SB250081-00, Issue 001, dated December 9, 2014.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we
find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket Number FAA-2016-3981;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-053-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 0 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection........................  3 work-hours x $85 per                 $0             $255               $0
                                     hour = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that
would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no
way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
repairs:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                  Action                                Labor cost                 Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrective action.........................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85..          $1,027           $1,112
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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

    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 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.

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):

2016-04-23 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18417; Docket No. FAA-
2016-3981; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-053-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 15, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB250081-00, Issue 001, dated December 9, 2014.

 (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of missing right and left
outboard partition tie rods at station 337 (door number 1). We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct partitions with missing tie
rods or release pins or with supports that are not engaged in the
structural bracket. These partitions could come loose during a high-
acceleration event and strike the flight attendant seats in the door
1 location, causing serious injury to the seat occupants, or could
affect safe egress from the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Actions

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a
general visual inspection of the applicable station 337 outboard
partitions for a tie rod and quick release pins, and to ensure that
both partition supports are engaged in the structural bracket at
each outboard partition; and do all applicable corrective actions;
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB250081-00, Issue 001, dated December 9, 2014;
except where Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250081-00, Issue
001, dated December 9, 2014, specifies to do the general visual
inspection ``in accordance with the Tasks in Table 6,'' this AD
requires that the inspection be done in accordance with the tasks in
Table 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB250081-00, Issue 001, dated December 9, 2014.
Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 manager of the
ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph
(i) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Francis Smith,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250081-00, Issue 001,
dated December 9, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.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 February 18, 2016.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-04138 Filed 2-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16239-16240]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6712]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91 and 119

Moratorium on New Exemptions for Passenger Carrying Operations
Conducted for Compensation and Hire in Other Than Standard Category
Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Policy statement.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces a temporary moratorium on new
requests, or changes to exemptions from certain sections of Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) for the purpose of carrying
passengers for compensation or hire on Living History Flight
Experiences (LHFE). It explains the history of these exemptions and the
reason for the temporary moratorium.

DATES: This moratorium becomes effective on March 23, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Stinchcomb, General Aviation
and Commercial Division, General Aviation Operations Branch (AFS-830),
Flight Standards Service, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In 1996, the FAA granted an exemption from various requirements of
part 91 and part 119 to an aviation museum/foundation allowing the
exemption holder to operate a large, crew-served, piston-powered,
multiengine, World War II (WWII) bomber carrying passengers for the
purpose of preserving U.S. military aviation history. In return for
donations, the contributors would receive a local flight in the
restored bomber. Without these contributions, the petitioner asserted
that the cost of operating and maintaining the airplane would be
prohibitive.
    The FAA determined that these airplanes were operated under a
limited and experimental category airworthiness certificate. Without
type certification under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Sec.  21.27, they are not eligible for standard airworthiness
certificates. The high cost of type certification under Sec.  21.27
makes this avenue impractical for operators providing living history
flights. Comparable airplanes manufactured under a standard
airworthiness certificate did not exist. Thus, the FAA determined that
an exemption was an appropriate way to preserve aviation history and
keep the airplanes operational. In granting the exemption, the FAA
found there was an overwhelming public interest in preserving U.S.
aviation history, just as the preservation of historic buildings,
historic landmarks, and historic neighborhoods have been determined to
be in the public interest. While aviation history can be represented in
static displays in museums, in the same way historic landmarks could be
represented in a museum, the public has shown support for and a desire
to have these historic aircraft maintained and operated to allow them
to experience flight in these aircraft.
    A 2004 policy explicitly limited the scope of LHFE exemptions to
WWII or earlier vintage airplanes. The reasons enumerated in the
statement addressed both public interest (e.g. the unique opportunity
to experience flight in a B-17 or B-24 while such aircraft can still be
safely maintained) and public safety (i.e. older and slower multiengine
airplanes allow time for appropriate corrective measures in the event
of an in-flight emergency and such crews must meet FAA qualifications
and training requirements). The FAA stated that the agency did not
believe it prudent to grant exemptions from the FAA regulations to
operators of supersonic jets.
    In response to numerous requests to expand the scope of the
exemptions, the FAA requested comments on a proposed policy in 2006,
and subsequently published a new policy on October 9, 2007 (72 FR
57196).
    The 2007 policy statement agreed to consider any request for
exemption for passenger-carrying flights in non-standard category
aircraft, especially former military turbine-engine-powered aircraft,
on a case-by-case basis. For petitioners intending to operate
experimental exhibition, surplus foreign or domestic aircraft, and/or
turbojet or turbine-powered aircraft, it stated that the FAA would
closely examine the proposed operation with respect to safety of
flight, passenger safety considerations, and safety of the non-
participating public during the operational period and within the
operational area before approving a LHFE exemption. Other criteria
included passenger/crew egress, emergency egress systems such as
ejection seats, documentation or statistical make and model operational
history, historical significance of the particular aircraft,
maintenance history, operational failure modes, and aging aircraft
factors. The 2007 policy also observed that some of the aircraft in
question are complex in nature, requiring special skills to operate
safely, and that military equipment such as ejection seat systems can
pose additional risk to aircraft occupants, ground personnel, and non-
participating bystanders on the ground.
    Also in the 2007 statement, the FAA cautioned that those requesting
an exemption from a particular standard or set of standards must
demonstrate that (1) there is an overriding public interest in
providing a financial means for a non-profit organization to continue
to preserve and operate these historic aircraft, and (2) adequate
measures

(including all conditions and limitations stipulated in the exemption)
will be taken to ensure safety. The FAA further stated that
``operations authorized under these exemptions are specifically not air
tour, sightseeing, or air carrier operations'' and that the agency ``in
determining the public interest derived in any grant of exemption of
this nature, will take into consideration the number of existing
operational aircraft and petitioners available to provide the historic
service to the public.''
    Consistent with the 2007 policy statement, the FAA has accommodated
several industry requests to allow operation of more modern-day
military jet aircraft (e.g., the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the
McDonnell-Douglas A-4 Skyhawk) under the LHFE policy. To ensure safety,
there are over 45 conditions and limitations the exemption holder must
comply with in order to operate under the provisions of the exemption.
The FAA has found, however, that operators have sometimes
misinterpreted these conditions and limitations as permitting
operations that the FAA did not contemplate or intend.

FAA Policy

    The evolution of LHFE operations in the private sector, along with
availability of newer and more capable former military aircraft, has
raised public safety and public policy concerns that the FAA needs to
assess. Accordingly, the FAA is placing a moratorium on the issuance of
any new LHFE exemptions, including addition of new aircraft to current
exemptions. Current LHFE exemption holders can continue to operate
under their current exemption. If the exemption is due to expire during
the moratorium, the FAA will accept and process petitions to extend
current exemptions in accordance with the established regulatory
exemption process. If a change is required (i.e. removal of an
aircraft) the FAA will accept these changes in accordance with the
regulatory processes. Additionally, during the moratorium, as
petitioners request extensions to their LHFE exemption, the FAA will
add the following clarifying limitations to all LHFE exemptions to
ensure consistent application of current LHFE policy: 1. Passengers are
prohibited from manipulating the aircraft flight controls when the
aircraft is operated under the LHFE exemption, and 2. No aerobatics may
be performed in the aircraft while operating under the LHFE exemption.
Finally, the FAA will begin its evaluation of the current LHFE
exemption policies and practices, to include evaluation of safety to
the paying members of the public who have an expectation of aircraft
safety and who may not understand the inherent risks associated with
such flight. The FAA expects to publish a new proposed LHFE policy for
comment on or before September 30, 2012.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 15, 2011.
John W. McGraw,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-6712 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Martin, F. N. 2003. Development of alternative strategies for management of soilborne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 41: 325  350.

MBTOC ( 1994): 1994 Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee for the 1995 Assessment of the UNEP Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Nairobi Page 67 Munn. D. A. 1992. " Comparison of shredded newspaper and wheat straw as crop mulches." Hort technol. 2: 361  366.

Noling, J. W., E. Rosskopf, and D. L. Chellemi. 2000. Impacts of alternative fumigants on soil pest control and tomato yield. Proc. Annual Int. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on the web at http:// www. mbao. org/ mbrpro00. html.

Ou, L. T., K. Y. Chung, J. E. Thomas, T. A. Obreza, and D. W. Dickson. 1995. Degradation of 1,3 dichloropropene ( 1,3 D) in soils with different histories of field applications of 1,3 D. J. Nematol. 25: 249   257.

Phatak, S. C., D. R. Sumner, H. D. Wells, D. K. Bell, and N. C. Glaze. 1983. Biological control of yellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus, with the indigenous rust fungus Puccinia canaliculata. Science. 219: 1446   1448.

Patterson, D. T. 1998. Suppression of purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) with polyethylene film mulch. Weed Technology, 12: 275 280.

Schneider S. M., E. N. Rosskopf, J. G. Leesch, D. O. Chellemi, C. T. Bull, and M. Mazzola. 2003. United States Department of Agriculture   Agricultural Research Service research on alternatives to methyl bromide: pre plant and post harvest. Pest Manag Sci. 59: 814 826.

Thullen, R. J. and P. E. Keeley. 1975. Yellow nutsedge sprouting and resprouting potential. Weed Sci. 23: 333 337.

Smelt, J. H., S. J. H. Crum, and W. Teinissen. 1989. Accelerated transformation of the fumigant methyl isocyanate in soil after repeated application of metam sodium. J. Environ. Sci. Health B24: 437 455.

UNEP ( United Nations Environment Programme). 1998. Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC) 1998 assessment of alternatives to methyl bromide. p. 49.

Verhagen, C., G. Lebbink, and J. Bloem. 1996. Enhanced biodegradation of the nematicides 1,3 dichloropropene and methyl isothiocyanate in a variety of soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 28: 1753   1756.

Webster, T. M. 2002. Nutsedge eradication: impossible dream? National Nursery Proc. RMRS P 000. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn Res. Station, Ogden, Utah.

Webster, T. M., A. S. Csinos, A. W. Johnson, C. C. Dowler, D. R. Sumner, and R. L. Fery. 2001. Methyl bromide alternatives in a bell pepper   squash rotation. Crop Prot. 20 ( 7): 605   614. Page 68 Wilen, C. A., M. E. McGiffen, and C. L. Elmore. 2003. Nutsedge: Integrated Pest Management for Home Gardeners and Landscape Professionals. University of California IPM Publication # 4732. Available on the Web at www. ipm. ucdavis. edu Page 69 APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI). 181,552 5%

2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 &

2002 Average 8,114 7%

21,489 24%

25,191 11%

54,794 16%

Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 27,656 574 48 0%

461,257 3,071 150 50%

257,985 1,718 150 36%

752,261 5,363 140 45%

45% 43%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 48 48 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

150 150 0% 0% 0% 0% 66% 42% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

150 150 8% 8% 0% 0% 64% 42% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/

) Verified Historic MeBr Use /

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kg of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue Yes Yes Yes Tarp No 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Tarp No + Yes Yes Yes Yes Tarp No 0 Yes Notes Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare 1,3 D + Pic or Metam Sodium + Pic 1,3 D + Pic or Metam Sodium + Pic 42% 46%

Quality/ Time/ Market Window/

Yield Loss (%)

6 % Yield Loss Marginal Strategy 1,3 D+ Pic Combined Impacts (%)

HIGH LOW 100%

MICHIGAN SOUTHEASTERN US GEORGIA 11% 17%

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE Regional Hectares**

% of Requested Hectares 7% 29%

1 Acre = 0.404686 MICHIGAN SOUTHEASTERN US GEORGIA 0.453592 * SE Cucurbit Consortium requested a greater quantity of MB from their 2002 CUE application, but adjustments are attributed to growth estimates due to two factors: ( 1) the inclusion of 2 new states ( Kentucky &

Louisiana) in the 2003 CUE Application, ( 2) 29% or 44% Yield Loss 29% or 44% Yield Loss 2006 Nomination Options TOTAL OR AVERAGE REGION REGION GEORGIA REGION (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%)

Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts REGION MICHIGAN SOUTHEASTERN US Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis MICHIGAN SOUTHEASTERN US GEORGIA 100%

66% 68%

13% 13% 41% 61%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 0% 13% 1,187,120 1,187,120 801,139 529,933 Nomination Amount 1,362,231 1,362,231 1,187,120  497,434 316,549 405,837  61   276,049 185,728 928,739  175,050  () QPS HIGH LOW 27,656     27,656 27,656 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) 0%

1,362,231 9,460 116 1,231,094 8,589 116 2,868 150 0%

405,837 2,702 150 430,696 578 48 0%

928,739 6,184 150 772,531 5,144 150 0%

27,656 574 48 27,867 2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha)

Sector: CUCURBITS % of Average Hectares Requested:

2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Date: 2/ 26/ 04 Average Hectares in the US:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Page 70 Footnotes for Appendix A: Values may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1. Average Hectares in the US   Average Hectares in the US is the average of 2001 and 2002 total hectares in the US in this crop when available. These figures were obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2. % of Average Hectares Requested  Percent (%) of Average Hectares Requested is the total area in the sector's request divided by the Average Hectares in the US. Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 3. 2006 Amount of Request   The 2006 amount of request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. U. S. units of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the US nomination. 4. 2001 & 2002 Average Use   The 2001 & 2002 Average Use is the average of the 2001 and 2002 historical usage figures provided by the applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. Adjustments are made when necessary due in part to unavailable 2002 estimates in which case only the 2001 average use figure is used. 5. Quarantine and Pre Shipment   Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the percentage (%) of the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. 6. Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares   Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares is the 2001 and 2002 average estimate of hectares within the defined region. These figures are taken from various sources to ensure an accurate estimate. The sources are from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service and from other governmental sources such as the Georgia Acreage estimates. 7. Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage %  Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage % is the area in the applicant's request divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request as found in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS). Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 8. 2006 Nomination Options   2006 Nomination Options are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust the initial applicant request into the nomination figure. 9. Subtractions from Requested Amounts   Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were subtracted from the initial request amount. 10. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request   Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request is the starting point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant request in kilograms. 11. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting is the estimate measured in kilograms in situations where an applicant has made a request for a CUE with an individual application while their consortium has also made a request for a CUE on their behalf in the consortium application. In these cases the double counting is removed from the consortium application and the individual application takes precedence. 12. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison is the greatest reduction of the estimate measured in kilograms of either the difference in the amount of methyl bromide requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically used or treated at a higher use rate or the difference in the 2006 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE application compared with the 2006 request from the applicant's 2003 CUE application. 13. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS is the estimate measured in kilograms of the request subject to QPS treatments. This subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then Page 71 multiplied by the percentage subject to QPS treatments. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, QPS = ( 2006 Request   Double Counting   Growth)*( QPS %) 14. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate Difference   Subtractions from requested amounts, use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount, if applicable, minus the difference between the requested use rate and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares. 15. Adjustments to Requested Amounts   Adjustments to requested amounts were factors that reduced to total amount of methyl bromide requested by factoring in the specific situations were the applicant could use alternatives to methyl bromide. These are calculated as proportions of the total request. We have tried to make the adjustment to the requested amounts in the most appropriate category when the adjustment could fall into more than one category. 16. (%) Karst topography   Percent karst topography is the proportion of the land area in a nomination that is characterized by karst formations. In these areas, the groundwater can easily become contaminated by pesticides or their residues. Regulations are often in place to control the use of pesticide of concern. Dade County, Florida, has a ban on the use of 1,3D due to its karst topography. 17. (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones   Percentage of the acreage of a field where certain alternatives to methyl bromide cannot be used due the requirement that a 100 foot buffer be maintained between the application site and any inhabited structure. 18. (%) Key Pest Impacts  Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For example, the key pest in Michigan peppers, Phytophthora spp. infests approximately 30% of the vegetable growing area. In southern states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge. 19. Regulatory Issues (%)  Regulatory issues (%) is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used ( e. g., township caps) pursuant to state and local limits on their use. 20. Unsuitable Terrain (%)   Unsuitable terrain (%) is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type ( e. g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance) or terrain configuration, such as hilly terrain. Where the use of alternatives poses application and coverage problems. 21. Cold Soil Temperatures   Cold soil temperatures is the proportion of the requested acreage where soil temperatures remain too low to enable the use of methyl bromide alternatives and still have sufficient time to produce the normal ( one or two) number of crops per season or to allow harvest sufficiently early to obtain the high prices prevailing in the local market at the beginning of the season. 22. Combined Impacts (%)  Total combined impacts are the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, soil impacts, temperature, etc. In each case the total area impacted is the conjoined area that is impacted by any individual impact. The effects were assumed to be independently distributed unless contrary evidence was available ( e. g., affects are known to be mutually exclusive). For example, if 50% of the requested area had moderate to severe key pest pressure and 50% of the requested area had karst topography, then 75% of the area was assumed to require methyl bromide rather than the alternative. This was calculated as follows: 50% affected by key pests and an additional 25% ( 50% of 50%) affected by karst topography. 23. Qualifying Area  Qualifying area ( ha) is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares by the combined impacts. 24. Use Rate  Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for 2006 or the historic average use rate. 25. CUE Nominated amount  CUE nominated amount is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. 26. Percent Reduction  Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. 27. Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector  Self explanatory. 28. Total US Sector Nomination  Total U. S. sector nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector. 29. Dichotomous Variables   dichotomous variables are those which take one of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no. These variables were used to categorize the uses during the preparation of the nomination. 30. Strip Bed Treatment   Strip bed treatment is ` yes' if the applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise. 31. Currently Use Alternatives   Currently use alternatives is ` yes' if the applicant uses alternatives for some portion of pesticide use on the crop for which an application to use methyl bromide is made. Page 72 32. Research/ Transition Plans   Research/ Transition Plans is ` yes' when the applicant has indicated that there is research underway to test alternatives or if applicant has a plan to transition to alternatives. 33. Tarps/ Deep Injection Used   Because all pre plant methyl bromide use in the US is either with tarps or by deep injection, this variable takes on the value ` tarp' when tarps are used and ` deep' when deep injection is used. 34. Pest free cert. Required  This variable is a ` yes' when the product must be certified as ` pest free' in order to be sold 35. Other Issues. Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an application that were checked 36. Change from Prior CUE Request This variable takes a `+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a ` 0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a `` if the current request is smaller that the previous request. 37. Verified Historic Use/ State This item indicates whether the amounts requested by administrative area have been compared to records of historic use in that area. 38. Frequency of Treatment   This indicates how often methyl bromide is applied in the sector. Frequency varies from multiple times per year to once in several decades. 39. Economic Analysis   provides summary economic information for the applications. 40. Loss per Hectare   This measures the total loss per hectare when a specific alternative is used in place of methyl bromide. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 41. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide   This measures the total loss per kilogram of methyl bromide when it is replaced with an alternative. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 42. Loss as a % of Gross revenue   This measures the loss as a proportion of gross ( total) revenue. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 43. Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue  This measures loss as a proportion of total revenue minus operating costs. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. This item is also called net cash returns. 44. Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%)   When this measure is available it measures the sum of losses including quality losses, non productive time, missed market windows and other yield losses when using the marginal strategy. 45. Marginal Strategy  This is the strategy that a particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use methyl bromide. Page 73 APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF NEW APPLICANTS A number of new groups applied for methyl bromide for 2005 during this application cycle, as shown in the table below. Although in most cases they represent additional amounts for sectors that were already well characterized sectors, in a few cases they comprised new sectors. Examples of the former include significant additional country ( cured, uncooked) ham production; some additional request for tobacco transplant trays, and very minor amounts for pepper and eggplant production in lieu of tomato production in Michigan.

For the latter, there are two large requests: cut flower and foliage production in Florida and California (` Ornamentals') and a group of structures and process foods that we have termed ` Post Harvest NPMA' which includes processed ( generally wheat based foods), spices and herbs, cocoa, dried milk, cheeses and small amounts of other commodities. There was also a small amount requested for field grown tobacco.

The details of the case that there are no alternatives which are both technically and economically feasible are presented in the appropriate sector chapters, as are the requested amounts, suitably adjusted to ensure that no double counting, growth, etc. were included and that the amount was only sufficient to cover situations ( key pests, regulatory requirements, etc.) where alternatives could not be used.

The amount requested by new applicants is approximately 2.5% of the 1991 U. S. baseline, or about 1,400,000 pounds of methyl bromide, divided 40% for pre plant uses and 60% for postharvest needs.

The methodology for deriving the nominated amount used estimates that would result in the lowest amount of methyl bromide requested from the range produced by the analysis to ensure that adequate amounts of methyl bromide were available for critical needs. We are requesting additional methyl bromide in the amount of about 500,000 Kg, or 2% or the 1991 U. S. baseline, to provide for the additional critical needs in the pre plant and post harvest sector.

Applicant Name 2005 U. S. CUE Nomination ( lbs)

California Cut Flower Commission 400,000 National Country Ham Association 1,172 Wayco Ham Company 39 California Date Commission 5,319 National Pest Management Association 319,369 Michigan Pepper Growers 20,904 Michigan Eggplant Growers 6,968 Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA  Transplant Trays 2,254 Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA  Field Grown 28,980 Virginia Tobacco Growers  Transplant Trays 941 Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 4,200 Page 74 Ozark Country Hams 240 Nahunta Pork Center 248 American Association of Meat Processors 296,800 Total lbs 1,087,434 Total kgs 493,252


                 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION WORKSHEET
                    Part II: Information Collection Detail

IMPORTANT:  A separate Part II must be completed for each Information Collection (IC) activity associated with the ICR.  If more than one Part II is required, create a separate Part II document for each IC.  For more information see OEI's ICR website at http://intranet.epa.gov/icrintra/.  There you will find information on completing this form (see OEI's ICRAS instructions under the Prepare an ICR tab) and information on how break your ICR into ICs (see OMB's ROCIS IC Q&A under the Download Guidance tab).
1. Title of Information Collection:  Federal Implementation Plans Under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in ID, OR, and WA
2. Is this a common form?
  Yes
  No

(Select Yes to identify forms that EPA is willing to host for potential use by other Federal Agencies.)

3. Obligation to respond (check one):
       Voluntary
       Required to obtain or retain benefits
        Mandatory

Note: Only one selection may be made.  If multiple categories apply, you must create additional ICs to account for the burden associated with each category.
4. Frequency of reporting (only to be completed if there are reporting requirements, check all that apply):

  Hourly
  Daily
  Weekly
  Monthly
  Yearly
    Every Decade
    Quarterly
    Semi-Annually
  Biennially
  Once
  Occasionally
5.  CFR Citation(s) for the information collection under review (if applicable):

Title  Rule for general open burning permits   Part  40  Section  49.132
Title              Part              Section
Title              Part              Section
Title              Part              Section
6. Information Collection Instruments/Forms (if applicable) :

Form Name:  Burn permit application
Form Number:  7630-8 & 7630-13
URL (required if electronic) :  http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/tribal.nsf/programs/farr-permits
Is this form available electronically?        Yes        No
If yes, can this form be submitted electronically?        Yes        No

Form Name:
Form Number:
URL (required if electronic) :
Is this form available electronically?        Yes        No
If yes, can this form be submitted electronically?        Yes        No

Form Name:
Form Number:
URL (required if electronic) :
Is this form available electronically?        Yes        No
If yes, can this form be submitted electronically?        Yes        No

Attach additional sheets if necessary.

Note: Instruments/Forms must be submitted/uploaded as a separate attachment.

7.  Federal Enterprise Architecture Business Reference Model:

Line of Business (check one) :                                                                         Subfunction (check one) :
  Environmental Management
  Environmental Monitoring and Forecasting
  Environmental Remediation
  Pollution Prevention and Control
  Health
  Illness Prevention
  Immunization Management
  Public Health Monitoring
  Health Care Services
  Consumer Health and Safety
  Natural Resources
  Water Resource Management
  Conservation, Marine and Land Management
  Recreational Resource Management and Tourism
  Agricultural Innovation and Services
Note: Most EPA ICRs will be aligned with the Environmental Management FEA Line of Business.  Other likely categories are also listed.  For a full listing of the FEA Business Reference Model categories and definitions, see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/documents/FY07_Ref_Model_Mapping_QuickGuide.pdf.
8. Privacy Act System of Records (if applicable) :

Title:
Federal Register Citation:    Volume                Page Number                Publication Date
9. Respondents

Total Number:  863
Small Entity Number:  863
Percentage of responses collected electronically:  0

Affected Public (check one) :

  Individuals or Households
  Private Sector (if private sector, check all that apply)
                  Business or other for-profit
                  Not-for-profit institutions
                  Farms
  State, Local, or Tribal Governments
  Federal Government

Note:  Only one selection may be made.  If multiple categories apply, you must create additional ICs to account for the burden associated with each category.  Selecting multiple subcategories within "Private Sector" will not affect then number of ICs required.
10. Frequency: How often on average will each respondent respond to the Information Collection?

Calculated Annual Frequency:  1
   (responses per respondent per year)

Calculated Annual Number of Responses:  863
  Year

  Hour
  Business hour
  Day
  Business Day
  Week
  Month
  Decade
  Quarter
  Half-year

Number of Respondents 1  per

11. Hour and Cost Burden: Enter the hours and cost (per response) broken out by reporting, record keeping, and third party disclosure:

                              Hours per Response
                           Total Annual Hour Burden
                               Cost per Response
                           Total Annual Cost Burden
Reporting
                                      0.5
                                      432

Recordkeeping

Third Party Disclosure

Total
                                      0.5
                                      432

IMPORTANT: "Cost per Response" and "Total Annual Cost Burden" should include Capital/Startup and O&M costs only.

12. Annual Responses and Burden Change

                                Total Requested
                       Program Change due to New Statute
                    Program Change due to Agency Discretion
                  Change due to Adjustment in Agency Estimate
                      Change due to Violation of the PRA
                              Currently Approved
Annual Responses
                                      863

                                       0

                                      863
Annual Hour Burden
                                      432

                                       0

                                      432
Annual Cost Burden
                                       0

                                       0

                                       0


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60163-60165]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24170]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67929; File No. SR-C2-2012-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Related to AIM and SAM

September 26, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 21, 2012, the C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to make amendments to its rules
pertaining to certain auction mechanisms. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/RuleFilings.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of
the Secretary and at the Commission.

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 those 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Under Rule 6.51, Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM''), a
Trading Permit Holder that represents agency orders may electronically
execute an order it represents as agency (an ``Agency Order'') against
principal interest and/or against solicited orders provided it submits
the Agency Order for execution into the AIM auction process. Under Rule
6.52, Solicitation Auction Mechanism (``SAM''), a Trading Permit Holder
that represents agency orders may electronically execute an Agency
Order against solicited orders provided it submits the Agency Order for
electronic execution into the SAM auction process, under which both the
Agency Order and the solicited order will be designated in the C2
System as all-or-none. The Exchange is proposing to make certain
changes detailed below to these auction trading rules.
    First, currently the AIM and SAM auctions each in relevant part
provide that auction responses may be modified or canceled during the
auction response period. The only way to modify a response would be for
a Trading Permit Holder to cancel a prior response then submit a new
response. As a result, the Exchange believes that the references to
modifying responses in the rule text are unnecessary. Therefore, the
Exchange is proposing to delete references to modifying responses in
Rules 6.51(b)(1) and 6.52(b)(1), respectively.
    Second, normally an auction would conclude after 1 second in the
case of an AIM or SAM auction. In addition, respective AIM and SAM
auction provisions set out various circumstances during which an
auction would conclude early. Currently, the provisions are silent on
what would happen in the event the option series is subject to a
trading halt while an auction is ongoing. In such an event, the
relevant auction would conclude early and the Agency Order would
execute (or not execute) in accordance with the allocation provisions
set out in the relevant rules. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to
amend Rules 6.51(b)(2) and 6.52(b)(2), respectively, to indicate that
an auction would conclude early in the event of a trading halt in the
series on the Exchange and the Agency Order would execute (or not
execute) in accordance with the allocation provisions set out in the
relevant rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') has a
similar provision within its electronic auction rules related to the
early conclusion of an auction due to a trading halt. See Phlx Rule
1080(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Statutory Basis \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission notes that the Exchange has repeated this
paragraph under Section I.A.2 (Statutory Basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular in that it should promote
just and equitable principles of trade, serve to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and protect investors and the public interest. In
particular, the Exchange believes that the refinements being proposed
in this rule change filing should serve to further those objectives by
more clearly and fully describing certain aspects of the operation of
the AIM and SAM auction processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular in that it should promote
just and equitable principles of trade, serve to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and protect investors and the public interest. In
particular, the Exchange believes that the refinements being proposed
in this rule change filing should serve to further those objectives by
more clearly and fully describing certain aspects of the operation of
the AIM and SAM auction processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\12\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2012-034 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2012-034. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the 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-C2-2012-034 and should be submitted on or before October
23, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24170 Filed 10-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 26210]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0389; FMCSA-2012-0294; FMCSA-2013-0109; FMCSA-
2013-0442]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 11
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, 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.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. 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 and/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., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On October 14, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing its
decision to renew exemptions for 11 individuals from the Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV
in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (81 FR
71181). The public comment period ended on November 14, 2016, and no
comments were received on January 9, 2017, FMCSA published a second
notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for the same 11
individuals from the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders prohibition in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested
comments from the public (81 FR 71181). The public comment period ended
on February 8, 2017, and no comments were received.
    As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the
eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these
exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current
regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person:

Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy
or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.

    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Section 391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.]

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 11 renewal exemption applications
and no comments received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the
following drivers from the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8), subject to the requirements cited above.
    As of April 8, 2016, the following four individuals have satisfied
the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), from driving CMVs
in interstate commerce (81 FR 71181): Jeffrey Ballweg (WI); Michael
Ranalli (PA); Lonnie Reicker (IL); and Jay Whitehead (NY). These
drivers were included in FMCSA-2011-0389; and FMCSA-2012-0294; FMCSA-
2013-0109. The exemptions were effective on April 8, 2016, and will
expire on April 8, 2018.
    As of April 23, 2016, the following seven individuals have
satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), from
driving CMVs in interstate commerce (81 FR 71181):

Charles Blood (NY)
Raymond Lobo (NJ)
Randy Pinto (PA)
Brent Robinson (NC)
Douglas Teigland (MN)
Joseph Thomas (MD)
James Spece (PA)

    These drivers were included in FMCSA-2013-0442. The exemptions were
effective on April 23, 2016, and will expire on April 23, 2018.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid
for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (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
prior to being 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: May 26, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-11649 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P