[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 65319]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27091]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Membership Availability in the National Parks Overflights
Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee--Representative of Native
American Tribes

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), as required by the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000, established the National Parks Overflights
Advisory Group (NPOAG) in March 2001. The NPOAG was formed to provide
continuing advice and counsel with respect to commercial air tour
operations over and near national parks. This notice informs the public
of a vacancy (due to completion of membership on April 2, 2012) on the
NPOAG (now the NPOAG Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)) for a
representative of Native American tribal concerns and invites
interested persons to apply to fill the vacancy.

DATES: Persons interested in serving on the NPOAG ARC should contact
Mr. Barry Brayer in writing and postmarked or e-mailed on or before
November 30, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Brayer, AWP-1SP, Special
Programs Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region
Headquarters, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, telephone:
(310) 725-3800, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was
enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181. The Act required the
establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after its enactment.
The advisory group was established in March 2001, and is comprised of a
balanced group of representatives of general aviation, commercial air
tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American tribes.
The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS (or their
designees) serve as ex officio members of the group. Representatives of
the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-year terms as
chairman of the advisory group.
    The advisory group provides ``advice, information, and
recommendations to the Administrator and the Director--
    (1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the
amendments made by this title;
    (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in
commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands,
which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour
management plan;
    (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the
interests of visitors to national parks; and
    (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety,
environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour
operations over a national park or tribal lands.''
    Members of the advisory group may be allowed certain travel
expenses as authorized by section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code,
for intermittent Government service.
    By FAA Order No. 1110-138, signed by the FAA Administrator on
October 10, 2003, the NPOAG became an Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC). FAA Order No. 1110-138, was amended and became effective as FAA
Order No. 1110-138A, on January 20, 2006.
    The current NPOAG ARC is made up of one member representing general
aviation, three members representing the air tour industry, four
members representing environmental concerns, and two members
representing Native American interests. Current members of the NPOAG
ARC are: Heidi Williams, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Alan
Stephen, fixed-winged air tour operator representative; Elling
Halvorson, Papillon Airways, Inc.; Matthew Zuccaro, Helicopter
Association International; Chip Dennerlein, Siskiyou Project; Gregory
Miller, American Hiking Society; Dick Hingson, Sierra Club; Bryan
Faehner, National Parks Conservation Association; Rory Majenty,
Hualapai Nation; and Ray Russell, Navajo Parks and Recreation. Rory
Majenty of the Hualapai Nation is the current NPOAG member with the
expiring term on April 2, 2012.
    In order to retain balance within the NPOAG ARC, the FAA and NPS
invite persons interested in serving on the ARC to represent Native
American tribes, to contact Mr. Barry Brayer (contact information is
written above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests to serve on
the ARC must be made to Mr. Brayer in writing and postmarked or e-
mailed on or before November 30, 2011. The request should indicate
whether or not you are a member of an association or group related to
Native American tribal issues or concerns or have another affiliation
with issues relating to aircraft flights over national parks. The
request should also state what expertise you would bring to the NPOAG
ARC as related to tribal concerns. The term of service for NPOAG ARC
members is 3 years.

    Issued in Hawthorne, CA on October 11, 2011.
Barry Brayer,
NPOAG Co-Chairman, Manager, Special Programs Staff, Western-Pacific
Region.
[FR Doc. 2011-27091 Filed 10-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73972]
[DOCID:fr30no10-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2009-0312; SW FRL-9231-3]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Removal of Direct Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Removal of Direct Final Exclusion.

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

SUMMARY: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are removing the
direct final exclusion for Eastman Chemical Company--Texas Operations,
published on September 24, 2010.

DATES: Effective November 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Peace, Environmental
Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA
Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are
removing the direct final exclusion for Eastman Chemical Company--Texas
Operations, published on September 24, 2010, 75 FR 58315. We stated in
that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by October
25, 2010, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would
publish a timely removal in the Federal Register. We subsequently
received adverse comment on that direct final rule. We will address the
comments submitted in a subsequent final action which will be based on
the parallel proposed rule also published on September 24, 2010, 75 FR
58346. As stated in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed
rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action.

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental Protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: November 16, 2010.
Bill Luthans,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.

0
40 CFR part 261 is amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

0
2. In Tables 1, 2 and 3 of Appendix IX of part 261 remove the following
facility's waste streams: for Facility: Eastman Chemical Company--Texas
Operations, Address: Longview, TX; Waste Description: RKI bottom ash,
RKI fly ash and RKI scrubber water blowdown.

[FR Doc. 2010-30109 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 35347]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12395]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-189 OMB Control No. 3235-0201]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 17a-2

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-
2 (17 CFR 240.17a-2), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17a-2 requires underwriters to maintain information regarding
stabilizing activities conducted in accordance with Rule 104 of
Regulation M. The collections of information under Regulation M and
Rule 17a-2 are necessary for covered persons to obtain certain benefits
or to comply with certain requirements. The collections of information
are necessary to provide the Commission with information regarding
syndicate covering transactions and penalty bids. The Commission may
review this information during periodic examinations or with respect to
investigations. Except for the information required to be kept under
Rule 104(i) (17 CFR 242.104(i)) and Rule 17a-2(c), none of the
information required to be collected or disclosed for PRA purposes will
be kept confidential. The recordkeeping requirement of Rule 17a-2
requires the information be maintained in a separate file, or in a
separately retrievable format, for a period of three years, the first
two years in an easily accessible place, consistent with the
requirements of Exchange Act Rule 17a-4(f) (17 CFR 240.17a-4(f)).
    There are approximately 805 respondents per year that require an
aggregate total of 4,025 hours to comply with this rule. Each
respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes
approximately 5 hours to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden
per year is 4,025 burden hours. The total internal compliance cost for
the respondents is approximately $281,750, resulting in an internal
cost of compliance for each respondent per response of approximately
$350.00 (i.e., $281,750.00/805 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 3, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12395 Filed 6-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52771-52772]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21388]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67726; File No. SR-EDGA-2012-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend EDGA Rules To Add the Route
Peg Order

August 24, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On June 26, 2012, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange
Rule 11.5 to provide an additional order type, the Route Peg Order. In
addition, the Exchange proposed to amend Exchange Rule 11.8 to describe
the priority of the Route Peg Order relative to other orders on the
EDGA Book. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on July 5, 2012.\3\ The Commission received no comment
letters on the proposed rule change. On August 16, 2012, the Commission
extended to October 3, 2012, the time period in which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\4\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67291 (June 28,
2012), 77 FR 39785 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67677 (August 16,
2012), 77 FR 50740 (August 22, 2012).

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

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposed to add a new order type, the Route Peg
Order.\5\ A Route Peg Order would be a non-displayed limit order
eligible for execution at the national best bid (the ``NBB'') for Route
Peg Orders to buy, and at the national best offer (the ``NBO'') \6\ for
Route Peg Orders to sell, against routeable orders that are equal to or
less than the size of the Route Peg Order. The Route Peg Order would be
a passive, resting order that could only provide liquidity. The Route
Peg Order would not be permitted to take liquidity. Incoming orders
that are designated as eligible for routing would be able to interact
with Route Peg Orders. The incoming order would first be matched
according to the price/time priority rules established by Exchange Rule
11.8(a)(2)(A)-(C). If any portion of the incoming order remained
unexecuted only then would such order be eligible to execute against
Route Peg Orders.\7\ The Route Peg Order is intended to provide
liquidity in the event that a marketable order would otherwise route to
another destination. In addition, a Route Peg Order would only trade
with orders that are equal to or smaller in quantity than the original
order quantity of the Route Peg Order.\8\ If a Route Peg Order were
partially executed, it would be assigned a new time priority and new
timestamp after each partial execution until either the remaining size
is exhausted or the Route Peg Order is cancelled by the Member.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange proposed to amend Exchange Rule 11.5(c) to add
a new subparagraph (14) describing the Route Peg Order. See Notice,
supra note 3 at 39785.
    \6\ Together, the NBO and NBB are referred to as the ``NBBO.''
    \7\ The Exchange proposed to codify the priority of the Route
Peg Order in proposed new paragraph (a)(2)(D) of Exchange Rule 11.8.
See Notice, supra note 3 at 39785 n. 5.
    \8\ If a Route Peg Order were partially executed, it would be
able to execute against orders that were larger than the remaining
balance of the Route Peg Order, but those orders would still need to
be equal to or smaller than the original order quantity of the Route
Peg Order. The Exchange stated that it elected to design the system
in this manner to avoid the possibility of a single block-sized
order potentially clearing all of the liquidity posted on the
Exchange attributable to Route Peg Orders. Id. at 39786.
    \9\ The Exchange proposed to codify this principle in new
subparagraph (a)(7) of Exchange Rule 11.8. The Exchange also
proposes to add an exception for the Route Peg Order in Exchange
Rule 11.8(a)(5), which otherwise would require that a partially
executed order retain priority at the same limit price. The Exchange
asserted that assigning a new timestamp after each partial execution
would allow for a rotating priority of execution for Users (as
defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(ee)) who place Route Peg Orders. Id. at
39786 n. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Route Peg Orders would be able to be entered, cancelled and
cancelled/replaced prior to and during Regular Trading Hours.\10\ Route
Peg Orders would be eligible for execution in a given security during
Regular Trading Hours, except that, even after the commencement of
Regular Trading Hours, Route Peg Orders would not be eligible for
execution (1) in the opening cross, and (2) until such time that
regular session orders in that security could be posted to the EDGA
Book.\11\ A Route Peg Order would not execute at a price that is
inferior to a Protected Quotation,\12\ and would not be permitted to
execute if the NBBO were locked or crossed. Any and all remaining,
unexecuted Route Peg Orders would be cancelled at the conclusion of
Regular Trading Hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(y).
    \11\ For example, for stocks listed on the New York Stock
Exchange LLC (the ``NYSE''), regular session orders can be posted to
the EDGA Book upon the dissemination by the responsible Securities
Information Processor (``SIP'') of an opening print in that stock on
the NYSE. Conversely, for stocks listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC, regular session orders can be posted to the EDGA Book upon the
dissemination of the NBBO by the responsible SIP in that stock.
    \12\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\13\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Route Peg Order is designed to
incentivize Users \15\ to place greater liquidity at the NBBO, thereby
promoting more favorable executions for the benefit of public
customers. According to the Exchange, the Route Peg Order would result
in more favourable and efficient executions by: (1) Offering liquidity
providers a means to use the Exchange to post larger limit orders that
are only executable at the NBBO and that do not disclose their trading
interest to other market participants in advance of execution; (2)
offering market participants seeking to access liquidity a greater
expectation of market depth at the NBBO than may currently be the case;
and (3) offering more predictable executions at the NBBO for Users by
reducing the risk that incremental latency associated with routing an
order to an away destination may result in an inferior execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that these benefits of the Route Peg
Order would be realized only if they interact with orders that are
eligible for routing, as they are characteristic of public customers
who desire to execute at the best price. In contrast, notes the
Exchange, professional traders typically expect to post to the book,
execute immediately against the Exchange's best bid or offer, or ferret
out hidden liquidity at or inside the NBBO and use non-routable orders
to achieve these ends. The Exchange believes that Users would be
reluctant to post liquidity through the Route Peg Order if such orders
could interact with professional traders. Finally, the Exchange
highlights that any User can place a routable order that is eligible
for execution against a Route Peg Order.
    Based on the Exchange's statements, the Commission believes that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ that the proposed rule change (SR-EDGA-2012-28) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21388 Filed 8-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 66400]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP20-252-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: SCRM Filing Nov 2019 to be
effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/25/19.
    Accession Number: 20191125-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-253-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Agreement
Filing (CSU #216641-TIHPCIG) to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/25/19.
    Accession Number: 20191125-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-254-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (Pioneer Jan-Mar 2020) to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/25/19.
    Accession Number: 20191125-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-255-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing TSCA--Informational Filing (11-25-
19).
    Filed Date: 11/25/19.
    Accession Number: 20191125-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-256-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--South Jersey
Resources SP100754 Neg-Non Conf Amend Exhibit A to be effective 12/1/
2019.
    Filed Date: 11/25/19.
    Accession Number: 20191125-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 26, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26172 Filed 12-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 89292-89293]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28312]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2051; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-38]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Statesboro, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface for Statesboro-Bulloch County Airport,
Statesboro, GA, to support the revised area navigation (RNAV)
instrument approach procedure. This action increases the radius of the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and
updates the airport's name and geographic coordinates.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 21, 2024. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H Airspace Designations and Reporting Points
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it amends Class E airspace in Statesboro, GA.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA 2023-2051 in the Federal Register on November 2, 2023 (88 FR
75242), proposing to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface for Statesboro-Bulloch County Airport,
Statesboro, GA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 annually. This document amends
the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August
11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is
publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
These amendments will be published in the next FAA Order JO 7400.11
update.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Statesboro-Bulloch
County Airport, Statesboro, GA, by increasing the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to 7.2-miles
(previously 6.5-miles), to support a revised RNAV approach procedure.
In addition, this action updates the airport name (formerly Statesboro
Municipal Airport) and the geographic coordinates to coincide with the
FAA's database. Controlled airspace is necessary for the

area's safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (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);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only
affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a.
    This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances
warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11,
2023, and effective September 15, 2023, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Statesboro, GA [Amended]

Statesboro-Bulloch County Airport, GA
    (Lat. 32[deg]28'58'' N, long. 81[deg]44'13'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.2-mile radius of the Heart of Statesboro-Bulloch County
Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 19, 2023.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2023-28312 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40946-40947]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-
2003-14223; FMCSA-2004-17195; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-24783;
FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2010-0082]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
12 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective August 1, 2012. Comments must be
received on or before August 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-
1999-6480; FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2004-17195; FMCSA-
2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2010-0082, using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17,

2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 12 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 12 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Manuel A. Almeida (MA)
Ronald B. Brown (ME)
Trixie L. Brown (IN)
Thomas L. Corey (IN)
Brian G. Hagen (IL)
Azizi A. Jamal (NJ)
Willard L. Riggle (IN)
Jose M. Suarez (TX)
Lee F. Taylor (NJ)
Barney J. Wade (MS)
Richard G. Wendt (MS)
Charles A. Winchell (OK)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 12 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (64 FR 27027; 64 FR 51568; 64 FR 68195; 65 FR 20251; 67 FR
15662; 67 FR 37907; 67 FR 38311; 68 FR 10302; 68 FR 19596; 69 FR 17263;
69 FR 26921; 69 FR 31447; 70 FR 74103; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 14568; 71 FR
27033; 71 FR 27034; 71 FR 30227; 71 FR 30228; 71 FR 32184; 71 FR 41311;
71 FR 43557; 73 FR 27014; 73 FR 28187; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 42403; 74 FR
37299; 74 FR 48344; 75 FR 25918; 75 FR 25919; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 36779;
75 FR 39729; 75 FR 38602). Each of these 12 applicants has requested
renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the
vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In
addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the
respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each
applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These
factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability
to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA
concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a
period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by August 10, 2012.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 12 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: July 3, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy .
[FR Doc. 2012-16889 Filed 7-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P