[Federal Register: May 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 21791]
[DOCID:fr11my09-483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13419-000]

Northeast Hydrodevelopment, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

May 4, 2009.
    On April 2, 2009, Northeast Hydrodevelopment, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Ashuelot River Dam
Hydroelectric Project, to be located on the Ashuelot River, in Cheshire
County, New Hampshire.
    The proposed Ashuelot River Dam Project would be located along the
Ashuelot River channel below the existing outlet works at an existing
dam owned by the City of Keene Public Works Department. The existing
dam, which impounds the Ashuelot River is 160 feet long and 16 feet
high and includes a 134-foot-long spillway with three 6.5 foot-high by
5-foot-wide sluice gates. The impoundment encompasses about 34 surface
acres.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A newly constructed
powerhouse below the existing outlet works; (2) two submersible or
tubular-type turbine-generators with a total hydraulic capacity of 353
cubic feet per second and a total installed generating capacity of
0.236 megawatts; (3) a newly excavated 150-foot-long tailrace; (4) an
approximately 500-foot-long transmission line; (5) reinstalled 2-foot-
high flashboards; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The Ashuelot River
Dam Project would have an estimated average annual generation of
between 944 megawatts-hours, which would be sold to Public Service of
New Hampshire.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Norm Herbert, Manager, Northeast
Hydrodevelopment, LLC, 100 State Route 101A, Building C, Suite 270,
Amherst, New Hampshire 03031,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13419) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10855 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 63527-63529]
[DOCID:fr24oc08-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58814; File No. SR-Amex-2008-53]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Related to Amendments to Rule
925 (Confirmations) and Rule 921 (Opening of Accounts)

 October 20, 2008.
    On June 26, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (the ``Amex'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\2\ Notice of the proposal was published for comment
in the Federal Register on September 12, 2008.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposed rule change. 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. 58466 (Sept. 5,
2008) 73 FR 53057 (Sept. 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposed to amend Amex Rule 925 to clarify that
written confirmations relating to options transactions are not required
to specify the options exchange or exchanges on which such options
contracts were executed. The Exchange further

proposed to amend Amex Rule 921 to permit a General Securities Sales
Supervisor to approve the opening of an options account.

A. Options Confirmation Rule (Rule 925)

    Amex Rule 925 requires that every member and member organization
promptly furnish to each customer a written confirmation of each
options transaction for such customer's account. This confirmation is
required to disclose the type of option, the underlying security, the
expiration month, the exercise price, the number of option contracts,
the premium, commissions, the transaction and settlement dates, whether
the transaction was a purchase or a sale (writing) transaction, whether
the transaction was an opening or a closing transaction, and whether
the transaction was effected on a principal or agency basis. In
addition, Rule 925 requires that each confirmation, by appropriate
symbols, must distinguish between Exchange option transactions and
other transactions in option contracts and between such transactions
and transactions in other options. Rule 925 has been interpreted over
the years by market participants to require that written confirmations
relating to options transactions specify the options exchange or
exchanges on which such options contracts were executed. This proposal
seeks to clarify that Rule 925 does not require the name of the options
exchange or exchanges on which an options contract is executed.
    Prior to August 1999, an options class was typically listed on only
one options exchange. In August 1999, the options exchanges began to
multiply-list options classes that were previously listed on only one
exchange. In October 1999, the Commission stated that it believed a
linkage among options markets would benefit investors by increasing
competition among markets (and market participants) to provide the best
execution of customer orders.\4\ Subsequently, the Commission directed
the options exchanges to act jointly in discussing, developing, and
submitting for Commission approval an intermarket linkage plan for
multiply-traded options. On July 28, 2000, the Commission approved the
Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Options
Market Linkage (the ``Options Linkage Plan'' or ``Linkage Plan'')
submitted by the Amex, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., and
the International Securities Exchange, Inc.\5\ The Philadelphia Stock
Exchange, Inc., and the Pacific Stock Exchange agreed to participate in
the Options Linkage Plan in November 2000.\6\ As a result of the
introduction of multiple trading of options and the implementation of
the Linkage Plan, the contracts in a customer options order could be
executed on more than one options exchange and the significance of the
options exchange or exchanges that execute a particular options
transaction has diminished significantly.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 42029 (Oct. 19, 1999), 64 FR
57674 (Oct. 26, 1999).
    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 43086 (Jul. 28, 2000), 65 FR
48023 (Aug. 4, 2000).
    \6\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 43573 (Nov. 16, 2000), 65 FR
70850 (Nov. 28, 2000) and 43574 (Nov. 16, 2000), 65 FR 70851 (Nov.
28, 2000) (approval order).
    \7\ Modifications to this paragraph discussed in telephone
conference between Jeffrey P. Burns, Vice-President & Associate
General Counsel, American Stock Exchange LLC, and Max Welsh, Special
Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange
Commission, on August 7, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the duty of best execution, Amex members are required to
exercise diligence to obtain the best price when routing customer
options trades for execution. The Exchange, as well as the other
members of the Options Self Regulatory Council (the ``OSRC''),\8\
believes that in light of the existing best execution and disclosure
requirements, the usefulness of including on an options confirmation
the name of the options exchange or exchanges on which an options
transaction was effected does not outweigh the operational difficulties
of capturing the information given the multiple trading of options and
the application of the Options Linkage Plan industry-wide.
Consequently, the proposal would amend Amex Rule 925 to make clear that
written confirmations relating to options transactions are not required
to specify the options exchange or exchanges on which such options
contracts were executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The ORSC consists of the options exchanges and the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Options Account Opening Rule (Rule 921)

    Amex Rule 921 governs the opening of options accounts by members
and member organizations. Specifically, Rule 921(c), relating to
``Diligence in Opening Account,'' provides that in approving a
customer's account for options transactions, a member or member
organization shall exercise due diligence to learn the essential facts
as to the customer and his investment objectives and financial
situation, and shall make a record of such information (which shall be
retained in accordance with Amex Rule 922). Based on such information,
the branch manager or other registered options principal (``ROP'') is
required to approve in writing the customer's account for options
transactions. If the branch manager is not a ROP, the branch manager's
approval of the account must be confirmed within a reasonable time by a
ROP. The Exchange and the other members of the ORSC believe that an
amendment to the current options account opening procedures is
warranted so that a general securities sales supervisor, in addition to
a ROP, is able to open an options account without the approval of a
ROP. The other members of the ORSC are also expected to file similar
amendments to their options account opening rules.
    The Exchange believes that permitting a general securities sales
supervisor to approve the opening of an options account would be
appropriate and would properly reflects the maturity of the options
market and the manner in which the uses of options are more integrated
with other securities in the implementation of investment
strategies.\9\ In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed
amendment to Rule 921 would further permit member firms to integrate
their options activities into their overall supervisory and compliance
structures that monitor all securities products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission recently approved the elimination of the
Senior Registered Options Principal (``SROP'') and Compliance
Registered Options Principal (``CROP'') supervisory categories,
permitting member firms to supervise their options activities
through their overall supervisory and compliance programs that
monitor all other securities products. See Exchange Act Release No.
57738 (April 29, 2008), 73 FR 25805 (May 7, 2008) (approval order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6 of the
Exchange Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5),\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade and to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities. The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is
designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the

public interest, by clarifying options confirmation and account opening
procedure rules to better reflect the realities of the modern options
market and the compliance and regulatory structures adopted by firms.
The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with section
6(b)(5) Exchange Act because the proposed amendments to Amex Rules 925
and 921 better reflect the manner in which standardized options are
listed and traded on the options exchanges and integrated into firms'
general securities supervision and compliance programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving this proposal, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2008-53) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-25371 Filed 10-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55068-55069]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0083; Notice 1]

China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC (CMA) and Double Coin
Holdings, Ltd (DCHL) have determined that certain Double Coin and
Dynatrac brand truck & bus radial replacement tires that were imported
by CMA and manufactured by DCHL do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic
Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 Kilograms
(10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles. CMA and DCHL filed an appropriate
report dated June 17, 2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is October 15,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: 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 Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. CMA and DCHL's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), CMA and DCHL
submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of CMA and DCHL's petition is published
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency
decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
    II. Replacement Tires Involved: Affected are approximately
1,753,089 Double Coin and Dynatrac brand truck & bus radial (TBR)
replacement tires that were imported by CMA and manufactured by DCHL
tires from June 2011 to June 2014 (DOT date codes 2711 to 2614). Refer
to CMA and DCHL's 49 CFR part 573 report for descriptions of the tire
sizes and other specifics.
    III. Noncompliance: CMA and DCHL describe the noncompliance as the
inadvertent omission of the letter marking that designates the tire
Load Range from the tire sidewall.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires in
pertinent part:

    S6.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in this paragraph, each
tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified
in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section. The markings shall be
placed between the maximum section width (exclusive of sidewall
decorations or curb ribs) and the bead on at least one sidewall,
unless the maximum section width of the tire is located in an area
which is not more than one-fourth of the distance from the bead to
the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section width falls within
that area, the markings shall appear between the bead and a point
one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire, on
at least one sidewall. The markings shall be in letters and numerals
not less than 2 mm (0.078 inch) high and raised above or sunk below
the tire surface not less that 0.4 mm (0.015 inch), except that the
marking depth shall be not less than 0.25mm (0.010 inch) in the case
of motorcycle tires. The tire identification and the DOT symbol
labeling shall comply with part 574 of this chapter. Markings may
appear on only one sidewall and the entire sidewall area may be used
in the case of motorcycle tires and recreational, boat, baggage, and
special trailer tires. . . .
    (j) The letter designating the tire load range.

    V. Summary of CMA and DCHL's Analyses: CMA and DCHL stated their
belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    1. CMA has certified that the subject tires are fully compliant to
all requirements of FMVSS No. 119 except for the aforementioned
omission issue. The tires are manufactured to the specifications and
are able to carry the specified weight designed for these tires and as
mandated by FMVSS No. 119.
    2. CMA stated that NHTSA tested two samples from the tires in
question for endurance and found them to comply with the required
standards of FMVSS No. 119, and that in addition to the S6.5 required
markings, CMA also includes redundant safety markings on some of the
most critical criterion of a TBR tire. With FMVSS No. 119 requiring
items S6.5 (a-j) as mandatory, CMA also lists data that assists
dealers/consumers in recognizing the tire's abilities and performance.
Included on the sidewall of these tires, but not mandatory requirements
by FMVSS No. 119, are Load Index for both single and dual placement of
the tire, Ply Rating and Speed Rating.
    3. CMA believes that Load Index is a redundant data point for Load
Range. Both measure the important max load/max pressure data required
on the tire sidewall. In addition, the Tire and Rim Association (TRA)
data book lists a conversion chart as to Load Range and Ply Rating
correlation. Thus, the information that the Load Range letter is meant
to convey is already included on

the tire in two other ways, i.e. Load Index and Ply Rating.
    4. CMA has certified that the subject tires have been properly
manufactured to the requirements of FMVSS No. 119 including all static
and dynamic requirements and design requirements for max load
requirements as well as additional information for consumers to review
that correlate to load range so the noncompliance is one of format of
the markings.
    5. CMA believes that there is little to no risk of overloading by
an end-user because of the inclusion of the Load Index and Ply Ratings.
Even in the absence of the Load Range, an end-user would have to ignore
the max load/max pressure data on the tire and the ply rating in order
to create a risk as to motor vehicle safety.
    6. CMA also believes that because the tires in question meet the
performance standards of FMVSS No. 119, and the information conveyed by
the Load Range is imparted to end-users by both the required Load Index
and the optional Ply Rating, the absence of the Load Range on these
tires is inconsequential as to motor vehicle safety.
    CMA and DCHL has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected
the noncompliance so that all future production replacement tires will
comply with FMVSS No. 119.
    In summation, CMA and DCHL believe that the described noncompliance
of the subject replacement tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition, to exempt CMA and DCHL's from providing
recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120
should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject replacement tires that CMA
and DCHL no longer controlled at the time that it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not
relieve replacement tire distributors and dealers of the prohibitions
on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant replacement
tires under their control after CMA and DCHL notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-21883 Filed 9-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20203-20204]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07062]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0100]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Application
for Employment With the Federal Aviation Administration

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on January 24, 2023. The collection involves an automated
application process for employment with the Federal Aviation

Administration. Applicants access an online form that is presented with
requests for certain information. The information collected is
necessary to determine basic eligibility for employment and potential
eligibility for Veteran's Preference, Veteran's Readjustment Act, and
People with Disability appointments. In addition, there are specific
occupation questions that assist the FAA Office of Human Resource
Management (AHR) in determining candidates' qualifications in order
that the best-qualified candidates are hired for the many FAA
occupations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Main-Valentin by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0597.
    Title: Application for Employment with the Federal Aviation
Administration.
    Form Numbers: Not applicable (electronic submission).
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background:
    The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following collection of information was published on
January 24, 2023 (88 FR 4280). Under the provisions of Public Law 104-
50, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is given the authority
and the responsibility for developing and implementing its own
personnel system without regard to most of the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, exceptions being those concerning veteran's
preference and various benefits.
    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) developed a suite of forms
for use in automated employment processes: all under a single OMB
approval. The FAA office of Human Resource Management, Human Resources
(AHR) has the same OMB approval for its automated application for
employment. By automating processes for employment application and the
evaluation of candidates, AHR continues to markedly improve the service
it provides to the public as well as its ability to locate and hire the
best-qualified applicants. This automated process provides applicants
the capability to receive on-line results immediately upon submitting
their application questionnaires.
    The Agency is requesting certain information necessary to determine
basic eligibility for employment and potential eligibility for
Veteran's Preference, Veteran's Readjustment Act, and People with
Disability appointments. In addition, occupation specific questions
assist AHR in determining candidates' qualifications in order that the
best-qualified candidates are hired for the many FAA occupations. The
system currently in use for this collection is the FAA Automated
Vacancy Information Access Tool for Online Referral (AVIATOR). This
system cannot be directly accessed. Applicants are transferred to the
AVIATOR system from OPM's USAJOBS website during the application
process.
    Respondents: Over 180,000 U.S. citizens identified as applicants
for employment with the Federal Aviation Administration.
    Frequency: On occasion/as interested.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 180,000 hours.
    Approximately 180,000 respondents will complete an application form
on an as needed basis. Based on this sample size, it will take the
average applicant approximately 1 hour to read the instructions and
complete the form.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The estimated total burden is
180,000 hours annually.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 31, 2023.
Alpha O Woodson-Smith,
Information Technology Project Manager, Finance and Management (AFN),
Information and Technology Services (AIT), Enterprise Program
Management Service (AEM-320).
[FR Doc. 2023-07062 Filed 4-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


previously, the CATEX as revised in the final Order applies only to the
establishment or modification of helicopter routes that do not have the
potential to significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas.
    One commenter stated that helicopters do not follow precise routes,
and therefore impact broad areas. Since ``over major thoroughfares'' is
not a location that can guarantee avoidance of significant effects, the
FAA should delete this CATEX.
    Generally, helicopter routes established and charted by the FAA are
voluntary, and are designed to be flown under VFR. Major thoroughfares
are frequently used as visual reference points for pilots operating
under VFR. As revised in the final Order, the CATEX only applies to the
establishment or modification of helicopter routes that do not have the
potential to significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas;
therefore, if the establishment or modification of a helicopter route
over a major thoroughfare would result in a significant noise increase
in an adjacent residential or other noise sensitive area, the CATEX
could not be used for that action.
    In support of deleting CATEX 5-6.5.h, one commenter stated that a
single new helicopter flyover could be considered a significant impact.
    As revised in the final Order, the CATEX only applies to the
establishment or modification of helicopter routes that do not have the
potential to significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas.
As explained in Exhibit 4-1 the Order, the FAA uses the cumulative DNL
metric, rather than a single event metric, to determine the
significance of aircraft noise impacts.
    One commenter stated that flying over sensitive areas en route to
the ``major thoroughfares'' would obviously be a potentially
significant effect, since CATEX 5-6.5.h implies that actions involving
changes in routes outside ``major thoroughfares'' would not qualify for
a CATEX. Since the whole of the action must be included in an
environmental review, these effects must also be considered, adding to
the reasons why the FAA should delete this CATEX.
    The impacts associated with helicopters using entry and exit points
that are part of the establishment or modification of a helicopter
route would be considered in determining whether the action could
significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas. If such an
increase could occur, the CATEX would not apply.
    One commenter stated that the number of helicopter flights allowed
is not restricted under the CATEX. Helicopter use is increasing, and
this trend is likely to continue. An action in this category that
previously may have only affected a few flights per day could now
result in new impacts from helicopter flyovers several times per hour,
clearly resulting in potentially significant effects. The FAA should
either indicate the maximum number of flights to which the CATEX
applies or delete the CATEX.
    Establishment or modification of helicopter routes does not involve
authorization for or limitations on the number of helicopters that may
operate along helicopter routes. The FAA has determined that the
actions covered by the CATEX normally do not individually or
cumulatively have significant impacts. Before applying a CATEX to an
action, the FAA is required to determine whether the action involves
extraordinary circumstances in which a significant impact could result.
Where such extraordinary circumstance exists, the CATEX could not be
used.
    In support of deleting CATEX 5-6.5.h, one commenter stated that
because of increased helicopter use by organizations not under the
jurisdiction of the FAA, cumulative impacts are increasingly likely
from actions covered by the CATEX.
    Paragraph 5-2 of the Order 1050.1F requires that in determining
whether to apply a CATEX to an action, the FAA must consider
extraordinary circumstances, including whether there is a likelihood
that the action would directly, indirectly, or cumulatively create a
significant impact on the human environment.
    One commenter stated that impacts from helicopter activity over
major thoroughfares vary with normal variations in climatic conditions.
Since such variations are not ``extraordinary circumstances,'' CATEX 5-
6.5.h should either exclude actions in areas with climatic conditions
that at any time during the course of a year could cause significant
effects, or the CATEX should be deleted.
    The FAA uses DNL, which captures variations in weather over the
course of the year, to assess the significance of an action's noise
impacts. If the action could result in a significant noise impact, this
CATEX would not apply.
    In support of deleting the CATEX, one commenter noted that CEQ
states that when substantiating a new CATEX, a Federal agency should
``make findings to explain how the agency determined the proposed
category of actions does not result in individual or cumulatively
significant environmental effects.'' The commenter stated that the FAA
has not presented evidence that these effects would not occur.
    As explained previously, CATEX 5-6.5.h of the Order is not new. The
only changes from Order 1050.1E are: (1) Clarification that
``establishment'' of a helicopter route includes modification; and (2)
explicitly limiting the CATEX to the establishment or modification of
helicopter routes that do not have the potential to significantly
increase noise over noise sensitive areas. Neither of these changes
falls under the CEQ language quoted by the commenter. Moreover, under
the latter change each proposal to establish or modify a helicopter
route would have to undergo an initial analysis to determine if the
action could have significant noise impacts.
    One commenter noted that CEQ states that ``[M]onitoring and
evaluating implemented actions internally or collaboratively with other
agencies and groups can provide additional, useful information for
substantiating a CATEX.'' The commenter questioned where the FAA has
conducted monitoring to verify that the action defined in CATEX 5-6.5.h
would not have significant effects. The commenter questioned what
mechanism the FAA has in place to monitor, track, or enforce the
proposed routing along ``major thoroughfares.'' Since no such methods
exist to verify or enforce compliance, the FAA should expect non-
compliance, and therefore the FAA should delete this CATEX.
    As explained previously, CATEX 5-6.5.h of the Order is not new.
Neither of the changes to the CATEX from Order 1050.1E falls under the
CEQ language quoted by the commenter. In any event, the CATEX as
revised in the final Order is limited to establishment or modification
of helicopter routes that do not have the potential to significantly
increase noise over noise sensitive areas. This would have to be
determined before the CATEX could be applied.

III. Legislative CATEXs

    Several commenters stated that the legislative CATEXs are too broad
with some stating that the FAA Reauthorization of 2012 did not create
any CATEXs but provided only a legal presumption and others stating
that it

was contrary to the intent of the FAA Reauthorization of 2012.
    The FAA disagrees that it has incorrectly interpreted the intent of
the FAA Reauthorization of 2012. The title of Section 213 of the FAA
Reauthorization of 2012 is ``Acceleration of NextGen technologies'' and
the title of Section 213(c) is ``Coordinated and expedited review.'' In
both instances, Congress has identified its intent to ``accelerat[e]''
and ``expedite[]'' the implementation of NextGen technologies. A
reading of Section 213 at large, and section 213(c) specifically, bears
out the intent of these sections as identified in their titles. Section
213(c) of the FAA Reauthorization of 2012 includes two subsections,
Section 213(c)(1) and Section 213(c)(2), both of which are reasonably
interpreted as providing the FAA with tools to expedite implementation
of NextGen technologies. Since Congress established these CATEXs in the
FAA Reauthorization of 2012, they cannot be considered to be
inconsistent with the intent of the act. The FAA has added these two
legislatively created CATEXs to Order 1050.1F consistent with Section
213(c) of the FAA Reauthorization of 2012. Under Section 213(c)(1) of
the FAA Reauthorization of 2012, navigation performance and area
navigation procedures developed, certified, published, or implemented
under that section shall be presumed to be covered by a CATEX under
Chapter 3 of FAA Order 1050.1E (currently CATEX 5-6.5.q of Order
1050.1F) unless extraordinary circumstances exist. Under Section
213(c)(2) of the same Act, Congress identified navigation performance
or PBN procedures that, if certain conditions are met, are presumed to
have no significant impacts on the human environment and for which the
FAA ``shall issue and file a CATEX'' (currently 5-6.5.r of Order
1050.1F).
    One commenter stated that these provisions create ``legal
presumptions,'' not CATEXs. According to Black's Law Dictionary 1186
(6th Ed. 1990), ``a presumption of law is one which, once the basic
fact is proved and no evidence to the contrary has been introduced,
compels a finding of the existence of the presumed fact.'' In the
context of Section 213(c)(1) of the FAA Reauthorization of 2012, the
Act's language had the effect of creating a legislative CATEX, not
merely a legal presumption.
    Prior to the legislative CATEX, proposed procedures below 3000 feet
above ground level were normally assessed in an EA under Order 1050.1E.
This was explained in guidance that the FAA put out in 2012 (see
below). Congress, in revising the statute, intended that the procedures
be evaluated for NEPA purposes under a CATEX, not an EA, as was done
previously.
    Furthermore, absent the statutory language, the FAA's ordinary
practice with respect to implementation of a CATEX would be to review
the navigation procedures now identified in Section 213(c)(1) to
determine: First, if an existing CATEX might apply, and, second, if any
extraordinary circumstances precluded application of the CATEX. Thus,
the FAA's ordinary CATEX process would create two ``off ramps''--the
decision of whether an applicable CATEX exists and whether the
navigation procedure in question creates extraordinary circumstances.
The language of Section 213(c)(1) changes this ordinary procedure,
however. Under Section 213(c)(1), Congress has identified specific
navigation procedures for which a CATEX does apply, and creates only
one ``off ramp''--the presence of extraordinary circumstances. This is
a notable change in some circumstances, because certain of the
procedures that now fall under CATEX 1 (CATEX 5-6.5.q) previously were
considered actions normally requiring an EA. If the commenter's view
were correct, Congress would have created a provision with no more
legal import than to duplicate current FAA processes under NEPA, which
is not the case.
    Similarly, with respect to the second legislative CATEX, Congress
did not merely create a legal presumption of CATEX applicability. With
respect to this CATEX, Congress indicated that for any navigation
performance or other PBN procedure that ``. . . in the determination of
the Administrator, would result in measurable reductions in fuel
consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise on a per flight basis,
as compared to aircraft operations that follow existing instrument
flight rules procedures in the same airspace, shall be presumed to have
no significant affect [sic] on the quality of the human environment and
the Administrator shall issue and file a CATEX for the new procedure.''
Procedures meeting the conditions of the legislative CATEX are not
subject to extraordinary circumstances review. The requirement that FAA
``shall issue and file'' a CATEX for procedures meeting the
environmental conditions set out in Section 213(c)(2), clearly creates
a new CATEX.
    Under standard statutory interpretation principles, every provision
of law is to be given meaning and effect. Section 213(c) of the FAA
Reauthorization of 2012 can only be given meaning and effect if the
provisions have some practical application. The purpose of Congress in
this legislation was to provide the FAA with additional tools for NEPA
compliance to accelerate NextGen technologies. Therefore, Section
213(c) cannot be interpreted as merely espousing a legal presumption
that would be duplicative of existing applications of the law.
    The commenter also indicates a belief that the statutory CATEXs are
``too broad.'' Because these CATEXs were established by an act of
Congress, they have the force and effect of law and the FAA does not
have the discretion to determine that the CATEXs at issue are ``too
broad.'' The FAA must apply the statutory language consistent with the
most reasonable interpretation of that language using the legal
principles of statutory construction. Order 1050.1F is updated to
reflect the CATEXs as written in the FAA Reauthorization of 2012 and
interpreted using well settled principles of statutory construction.
    Two commenters stated that the FAA cannot rely on the legislation
to create these two CATEXs and therefore a CATEX justification package
should be developed to show how these actions do not individually or
cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts in the absence
of extraordinary circumstances.
    It is not uncommon for Congress to provide for specific CATEXs or
state in the legislation that certain actions should be presumed to
have no significant impacts and therefore should be categorically
excluded, as was the case for the two legislative CATEXs provided for
in Section 213 (c) of the FAA Reauthorization of 2012. These types of
CATEXs are provided for by law rather than being created at the
discretion of the agency. Because these legislative CATEXs are not the
product of administrative discretion, the FAA need not prepare a CATEX
justification package for submission to CEQ. See footnote 1 of the
CEQ's CATEX Guidance.
    Several commenters stated that the FAA has misinterpreted the FAA
Reauthorization of 2012 language and the intent of Congress was to only
create one CATEX.
    Congress set forth two separate provisions in the FAA
Reauthorization of 2012 dealing with CATEXs, Section 213(c)(1) and
Section 213(c)(2). These provisions are under separate subparagraphs,
and contain different criteria and limitations for application

of the CATEXs, as described in a previous comment response above. Given
the differences in the statutory language and the structure of these
statutory provisions, it is evident that Congress did not create a
single CATEX in these provisions.
    Several commenters expressed concerns that the legislated CATEXs do
not adequately address potential environmental impacts. In this regard,
commenters specifically cited noise including potential noise focusing
effects of PBN procedures and noise on residents living near freeways,
health effects, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and climate
change, economic impacts including diminished property values, fuel
consumption and fuel dumping, environmental justice, and cumulative
impacts. One commenter stated that Order 1050.1F contains no provision
to verify with ongoing monitoring that a CATEX determination about
noise reduction with a PBN procedure was correct.
    A CATEX by definition in CEQ regulations means a category of
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. The first legislative CATEX, 5-6.5.q
can only be used when it is determined that no extraordinary
circumstances exist that could cause a potential significant impact.
This includes a determination that the proposed action does not have
the potential to have significant impacts with respect to a variety of
environmental categories. In addition, environmental laws and
requirements other than NEPA (e.g., the Clean Air Act, E.O. 12989,
Environmental Justice), continue to apply. The FAA has issued guidance
on how to apply CATEX 1 (CATEX 5-6.5.q) available at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_guidance/guidance/.
    The second legislated CATEX is unique in that it prohibits the FAA
from applying extraordinary circumstances that would consider a variety
of environmental impacts if the Administrator has determined that the
procedures would result in measurable reductions in fuel consumption,
carbon dioxide emissions, and noise on a per flight basis, as described
in a previous comment response above. However, as with CATEX 1 (CATEX
5-6.5.q), environmental laws and requirements other than NEPA continue
to apply.
    With respect to the comment about the accuracy of the FAA's noise
determination when applying a CATEX, the FAA expends consideration
effort and resources to improve and verify the accuracy of its noise
models. Short-term noise monitoring is not as accurate as FAA's
computer modeling at calculating an annual Day Night Average Sound
Level (DNL), which is FAA's primary noise metric.
    Several commenters were concerned about safety from implementation
of the procedures covered by the legislative CATEXs.
    The actions covered by the legislative CATEXs are intended to cover
PBN procedures. Each procedure is evaluated for safety prior to
implementation, as is true with any new procedure regardless of whether
it is subject to the new legislative CATEXs or not.
    Several commenters stated that extraordinary circumstances should
be applied to the legislative CATEXs.
    The statutory language establishing the CATEX now located at CATEX
5-6.5.q of the Order, known as CATEX 1, specifically indicates that
actions taken in accordance with this CATEX are subject to
extraordinary circumstances review. However, the language in the FAA
Reauthorization of 2012 establishing CATEX 5-6.5.r of the Order, known
as CATEX 2, provides that the procedure is subject to a review to
determine whether it results ``in measurable reductions in fuel
consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise, on a per flight
basis, as compared to aircraft operations that follow existing
instrument flight rules procedures in the same airspace. . .'' If these
conditions are met, the statute states that the procedure ``shall be
presumed to have no significant affect [sic] on the quality of the
human environment and the Administrator shall issue and file a
categorical exclusion for the new procedure.'' The language of the
legislation both creates a legal presumption that there are no
significant effects on the quality of the human environment if the
identified conditions are met, and directs the FAA to apply the CATEX
(regardless of extraordinary circumstances).
    Several commenters questioned the FAA's claim that the legislative
CATEXs have no minimum altitude thus giving the FAA an exemption from
all noise impact evaluations for these actions.
    The legislative CATEXs were provided for in the FAA Reauthorization
of 2012 and did not limit application to any specific altitude. CATEX
5-6.5.q [CATEX 1] still applies extraordinary circumstances which would
not allow its application to procedures which have the potential to
create significant noise impacts in noise sensitive areas. Although
CATEX 5-6.5.r [CATEX 2] does not apply significance criteria, it does
state that there must be measureable reductions in fuel consumption,
carbon dioxide emissions, and noise on a per flight basis.
    One commenter noted that the FAA had prepared an EA for PBN
procedures proposed as part of the Optimization of the Airspace and
Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM) and that this precedent precludes
consideration of a CATEX for RNAV/RNP in a terminal airspace.
    The FAA disagrees that an EA for certain projects precludes the
appropriate use of a CATEX for other similar projects. An agency may
make a determination on a case-by-case basis to elevate the NEPA review
to an EA for a particular action even though a CATEX may be available.
Nothing in the CEQ Regulations or this Order precludes the future use
of a CATEX when an EA is prepared for a particular action.
    Several commenters stated that environmental impact review and
noise testing should be required when there are changes in flight
procedures and patterns.
    FAA actions must adhere to NEPA. In the case of the two legislative
CATEXs, Congress has established the conditions in CATEXs 5-6.5.q and
5-6.5.r through legislation. CATEX 5-6.5.q [CATEX 1] applies
extraordinary circumstances. One of the extraordinary circumstances is
the potential for significant noise impacts to noise sensitive areas.
The FAA employs noise screening to consider whether there are
extraordinary circumstances related to noise. Although CATEX 5-6.5.r
[CATEX 2] does not allow the consideration of extraordinary
circumstances, it does state that there must be measureable reductions
in fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise on a per
flight basis.
    Several commenters stated that there should be public involvement
when applying the legislative CATEXs.
    The FAA's public involvement and notification requirements are
consistent with the CEQ's requirements for public notice and comment.
The legislative CATEXs would be implemented in the same manner as other
CATEXs. The FAA has acknowledged that there may be circumstances where
public notification of a CATEX would be appropriate; however, these
decisions are made on a case-by-case basis (see Paragraph 5-4).
    Two commenters suggested that the Order reference where the list of
``core airports'' can be found and include the definitions of medium
and small hub airports. One commenter stated the FAA Reauthorization of
2012 specifically mentioned OEP airports (35 airports)

and not the core airports as written in Order 1050.1F.
    Detailed guidance on how to apply 5-6.5.q (CATEX 1) is available in
the 1050.1F Desk Reference which includes an appendix providing the
list of airports the CATEX applies to.
    The Core Airports are the 29 large hub airports and Memphis
International Airport. The definitions of medium and small hub airports
are defined within the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS) Report. Large hubs are those airports that each account for at
least one percent of total U.S. passenger enplanements; medium hubs for
between 0.25 percent and one percent, small hubs for between 0.05
percent and 0.25 percent.
    The FAA replaced OEP with an initiative to incorporate NextGen
technology into the National Airspace System based on the Core
Airports. In December 2012, the FAA interpreted the phrase ``35 OEP
airports'' in Section 213 to refer to the 30 Core Airports.
    One commenter stated that the legislative CATEXs should only be
applied to airports that have a current ALP, have a current Noise
Exposure Map on file, have engaged in a Part 150 Study and have
eliminated all incompatible land use in the airport vicinity with
reference to compatibility guidelines included in Appendix A of Part
150.
    Because the CATEXs at issue were established by law (the FAA
Reauthorization of 2012, Public Law 112-95), the FAA does not have the
discretion to add additional limitations to their applicability beyond
the terms provided in the statute.
    Several commenters stated the legislative CATEXs violate NEPA.
    A CATEX is a type of NEPA review and is recognized by CEQ. The
purpose of Congress in the FAA Reauthorization of 2012 was to provide
the FAA with additional tools for NEPA compliance to accelerate NextGen
technologies. It is not uncommon for Congress to provide for specific
CATEXs or state in the legislation that certain actions should be
presumed to have no significant impacts and therefore should be
categorically excluded, as was the case for the two legislative CATEXs
provided for in Section 213(c) of the FAA Reauthorization of 2012.
    One commenter recommended that the FAA align its environmental
procedures more closely with the clear statutory mandate in Section 208
of the FAA Reauthorization of 2012 and with NEPA; and that, in doing
so, the FAA would fulfill the directive in Section 208 of the 2012 Act
to set specific quantitative goals for environmental impacts and
measure ``actual operational experience against those goals, taking
into account noise pollution concerns of affected communities to the
extent practicable in establishing the environmental goals. . . .''
    The FAA's environmental procedures are aligned with NEPA. Order
1050.1F has been reviewed by the CEQ for adherence to NEPA. Section 208
of the FAA Reauthorization of 2012 is a separate provision involving in
part the establishment of specific quantitative goals for the safety,
capacity, efficiency, performance, and environmental impacts of each
phase of NextGen planning and development activities and the
measurement of actual operational performance against those goals.
Section 208 does not address the environmental impacts of proposed
site-specific NextGen procedures and does not guide or govern NEPA
reviews.
    One commenter stated the FAA has not solved the problem of how to
assess the noise on a per-flight basis, but seems poised to adopt the
recommendation of the CATEX2 Task Group to employ a net noise reduction
method.
    The CATEX in Order 1050.1F simply reflects the legislative wording.
The FAA is considering how to assess noise on a per-flight basis and
has asked for public comments on the CATEX2 task group recommendation.
    In addition to the foregoing comments, many comments were received
identifying typographical errors, missing or incorrect paragraph
identifiers, incorrect internal references, and other minor grammatical
inconsistencies. All such corrections are adopted unless stated
otherwise in this preamble.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 16, 2015.
Lourdes Q. Maurice,
Executive Director, Office of Environment and Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015-18084 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 53103]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4526-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Delaware; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Delaware (FEMA-4526-DR), dated April 5, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 5, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
dated April 5, 2020 for the State of Delaware is hereby amended to
include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    All areas within the State of Delaware are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-20700 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26347-26349]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09547]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-181-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on April 19, 2022, Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC,
121 Moore Hopkins Lane, Columbia, South Carolina 29210 filed in the
above referenced docket a prior notice pursuant to Section 157.205 and
157.210 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under
the Natural Gas Act, requesting authorization to construct, modify and
operate certain facilities located in the Counties of Spartanburg,
Dorchester and Charleston, South Carolina, under authorities granted by
its blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP06-72-000.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Carolina Gas Transmission Corp., 116 FERC ] 61,049 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, CGT requests that the Commission authorize its Moore-
Dorchester Optimization Project (Project), which will allow CGT to
provide 10,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm transportation
service from receipts to the Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc.
(DESC) delivery point in Charleston, South Carolina. The Project
facilities proposed consist of restaging of existing compressor units,
gas coolers, emergency use generator, and piping modifications at
existing stations. The estimated cost for the Project is approximately
$5.5 million, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
Richard D. Jessee, Supervisor Gas Transmission Certificates, BHE GT&S.,
6603 West Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23230,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\2\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: Complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: You can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 27, 2022. How
to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\3\ any person \4\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \4\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\5\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is June 27, 2022. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks
to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \6\ and the regulations under the NGA \7\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is June 27, 2022. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \7\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before June 27, 2022. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP22-181-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to

Documents and Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account
by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of
filing you are making; first select General'' and then select
``Protest'', ``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below.\9\ Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP22-181-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Hand-delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426
To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at:
[email protected], Richard D. Jessee, Supervisor Gas
Transmission Certificates, BHE GT&S., 6603 West Broad Street, Richmond,
VA 23230. Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on
the applicant and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact
information for parties can be downloaded from the service list at the
eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: April 28, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-09547 Filed 5-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 58948-58949]
[DOCID:fr08oc08-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

October 1, 2008
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER99-4102-008.
    Applicants: Milford Power Company, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Market Power Update of Milford Power
Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080814-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Friday, October 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-287-004.
    Applicants: Granite Ridge Energy, LLC.
    Description: Granite Ridge Energy, LLC submits an updated market
power analysis in compliance with Order No. 697 under ER05-287.
    Filed Date: 09/26/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081001-0118.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Friday, October 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1169-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc
submits proposed revisions to their Open Access Transmission and Energy
Markets Tariff.
    Filed Date: 09/24/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080929-0051.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1194-002.
    Applicants: Columbia Energy LLC.
    Description: Columbia Energy LLC submits their compliance filing of
their revised Rate Schedule FERC 1 for Reactive Supply and Voltage
Control from Generation Sources Service from South Carolina Electric &
Gas Company etc.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081001-0043.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, October 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1572-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revised executed
interconnection service agreements with Indiana Michigan Power Co.
    Filed Date: 09/24/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080929-0053.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1573-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits an executed interim
interconnection service agreement with Hudson Transmission Partners LLC
et al.
    Filed Date: 09/24/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080929-0050.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1574-000.
    Applicants: ORNI 18, LLC.
    Description: ORNI 18, LLC submits an Application for Market-Based
Rate Authority, Request for Waivers and Pre-Approvals, and Request for
Finding of Qualification as Category 1 Seller.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081001-0045.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, October 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1584-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Black Hills Power, Inc. submits First Revised Sheet
No. 114 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Sub First Revised Volume
No. 4, to be effective 12/1/08.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081001-0052.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, October 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1585-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits a Large Generator
Interconnection Agreement with Southwestern Public Service Co.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081001-0048.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, October 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1586-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator Inc. et al.
submits an executed Standard Small Generator Interconnection Agreement
with Casella Waste Systems Inc. and on 9/30/08 submitted an errata to
this filing.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2008; 09/30/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081001-0073; 20081001-0072.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, October 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1587-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Kentucky Utilities Company submits an executed copy of
Amendment 2 to Contract for Electric Service as Exhibit A with City of
Madisonville, Kentucky.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081001-0044.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, October 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1588-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Kentucky Utilities Co. submits amended and restated
agreements for requirements service.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081001-0146.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, October 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1603-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. submits Eighth Revised
Sheet 404 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 for
inclusion in the NYISO Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 09/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081001-0126.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Friday, October 10, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings
    Docket Numbers: RR07-7-005.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.
    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability

Corporation for Approval of Revisions to Exhibit E to Delegation
Agreement with the Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080930-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 10, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23800 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12545-12546]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05239]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0311]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 69 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were effective on January 31, 2015. The
exemptions expire on January 31, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room W64-224, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

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., 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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On December 31, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
Federal diabetes exemption applications from 69 individuals and
requested comments from the public (79 FR 78938). The public comment
period closed on January 30, 2015, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 69 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals 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)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)). FMCSA established its
diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study
entitled ``A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to
Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate
in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the
21st Century.'' The report concluded that a safe and practicable
protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible.
The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal Register notice in
conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), Federal Register
notice provides the current protocol for allowing such drivers to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 69 applicants have had ITDM over a range of one to 44 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the December 31, 2014, Federal
Register notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 69 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR
391.64(b)):

Joseph L. Allen (TX)
Cory T. Anderson (KY)
Ammon Ashby (UT)
Wayne A. Aukes (MN)
Ira M. Avant (UT)
Eric W. Beasley (GA)
Freddie W. Bermudez, Jr. (IL)
Evelin B. Black (CA)
Derrell K. Blanton (NC)
Richard A. Boor
Jimmy R. Bradley (OK)
Stephen R. Brown (NH)
Kenneth E. Chastain (TN)
Jeffrey C. Colbert (AR)
Nathan W. Cooper (IN)
Gregory F. Darmody (RI)
David A. Decker (MD)
Kenny I. Dickerson (GA)
James M. DiClaudio (NJ)
Steven A. Dion (NY)
Dean R. Duquette (ME)
Joseph J. Eckstrom (NY)
Ashford N. Eskaran (HI)
Tyrone A. Green (NY)
Morgan D. Hale, Jr. (KY)
James J. Hartman (SD)
Dale H. Hintz (WI)
Benjamin D. Horton (VA)
Danny R. Jackson, Jr. (OR)
Brian C. Jagdman (MD)
Terry J. Johnson (MD)
Robert L. Johnson, Jr. (OK)
John F. Jones (OH)
Michael W. Jones (NJ)
Carl J. Kern, Jr. (PA)
William C. Knight (TN)
Monte J. Lakosky (MI)
Aaron J. Larson (WI)
Roger L. Larson (SD)
Jeffrey G. Lawrence (AR)
Leo D. Maggioli (MA)
Ryan M. McClatchey (TN)
Carl A. Mears, Jr. (VT)
Laurence R. Middendorf (PA)
Robert P. Miller (WI)
James E. Neeley (MO)
Nicholas M. Palocy (NY)
Andrew S. Parks (CA)
John D. Patterson (OH)
Michael W. Perez (OH)
Jerry Platero (NM)
Darrell K. Rau (IA)
Andrew B. Renninger (PA)
Ryan T. Rock (ID)
Wilfredo Rodriguez (NY)
James T. Rogers (NC)
Mark A. Santana (PA)
Donald E. Scovil (NH)
David E. Shinen (CA)
Patrick A. Shryock (AR)
Trevor J. Swanson (MN)
Joshua C. Thompson (AZ)
Jeffrey D. Thomson (WI)
Marshall L. Wainwright (IL)
Robert L. Whipple, Sr. (PA)
Glenn Whitehouse (PA)
Jennifer R. Williams (PA)
John E. Yates (IN)
Jeffrey S. Zimmer (NH)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is
valid for two years 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 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. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Dated: March 2, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-05239 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: October 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 60369-60370]
[DOCID:fr10oc08-141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58716; File No. SR-Amex-2008-60]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Margin
Requirements for Fixed Return Options

October 2, 2008.
    On July 21, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-
4\2\ thereunder, a proposed rule change to amend its margin
requirements for fixed return options. The proposal was published in
the Federal Register on August 18, 2008.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 58341 (August 11, 2008), 73 FR
48258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposed to amend Rule 462(d)10 to clarify the margin
requirements applicable to Fixed Return Options (``FROs'' or ``Fixed
Return Options'').\4\ The Exchange stated that the purpose of this
proposal is to add clarity regarding the application of FRO margin
requirements in connection with ``spreads'' and ``straddle/
combination'' strategies. In addition, the proposal also seeks to
clarify the use of ``cover'' and a ``cash account'' in connection with
FROs. The Exchange stated that it believes that the proposed revision
reducing the customer margin applicable to ``spread'' and ``straddle/
combination'' positions in FROs is appropriate because risk exposure is
reduced under these strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange commenced the trading of FROs on May 8, 2008.
In August 2007, the Commission approved the Exchange proposal to
list and trade FROs based on individual stocks and exchange-traded
funds (``ETFs''). See Exchange Act Release No. 56251 (August 14,
2007), 72 FR 46523 (August 20, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amex Rule 462(d)10 is silent regarding the use of ``spread'' and
``straddle/combination'' positions. With respect to a ``spread''
position in FROs, the Amex proposes that no margin be required on a
Finish High\5\ FRO (Finish Low \6\ FRO) carried short in a customer's
account that is offset by a long Finish High FRO (Finish Low FRO) for
the same underlying security or instrument that expires at the same
time and has an exercise or strike price that is less than (greater
than) the exercise or strike price of the short Finish High (Finish
Low). As set forth in Rule 462(d)10(B), the long Finish High (Finish
Low) must be paid for in full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``Finish High'' FRO is defined in Rule 900 FRO(b)(2) as an
option contract which returns $100 if the underlying security closes
above the strike price at expiration.
    \6\ A ``Finish Low'' FRO is defined in Rule 900 FRO(b)(3) as an
option contract which returns $100 if the underlying security closes
below the strike price at expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with a straddle/combination, when a Finish High FRO
is carried short in a customer's account and there is also carried a
short Finish Low FRO that expires at the same time and has an exercise
price or strike price that is less than or equal to the exercise or
strike price of the short Finish High, the initial and maintenance
margin required would be the exercise settlement amount applicable to
one contract.
    With respect to the concept of ``cover'' the Exchange proposed a
clarification that ``cover'' is applicable only to ``cash accounts.''
In such a case, a FRO carried short in a customer's account will be
deemed a covered position, and eligible for the cash account, if either
one of the following is held in the account at the time the FRO is
written or is received into the account promptly thereafter:

     Cash or cash equivalents equal to 100% of the exercise
settlement amount;
     A long FRO of the same type (Finish High or Finish Low)
for the same underlying security or instrument that is paid for in
full and expires at the same time, and has an exercise or strike
price that is less than the exercise or strike price of the short in
the case of a Finish High or greater than the exercise or strike
price of the short in the case of a Finish Low; or
     An escrow agreement.

    The escrow agreement must certify that the bank holds for the
account of the customer as security for the

agreement (A) cash, (B) cash equivalents, (C) one or more qualified
equity securities, or (D) a combination thereof having an aggregate
market value of not less than 100% of the exercise settlement amount
and that the bank will promptly pay the member organization the cash
settlement amount in the event the account is assigned an exercise
notice.
    After careful review of the proposal, 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.\7\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission believes that the proposal will benefit the marketplace
and provide market participants with greater clarity in connection with
their responsibilities in the trading and handling of FRO transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2008-60), be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 [FR Doc. E8-24116 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35097-35098]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14711]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0010; Airspace Docket No. 11-AAL-1]

Amendment of Federal Airways; Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action changes the effective date for the amendment of
all Anchorage, AK, Federal Airways that are affected by the relocation
of the Anchorage VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) navigation aid. The
FAA is taking this action due to a failed flight inspection.

DATES: The effective date of the rule published on April 28, 2011 (76
FR 23687), is delayed until further notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace, Regulations and
ATC Procedures Group, Office of Mission Support Services, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Federal Register Document FAA-2011-0010, Airspace Docket No. 11-
AAL-1, published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2011 (76 FR
23687), proposed the amendment of all Anchorage Federal Airways
affected by the relocation of the Anchorage VOR navigation aid.
Although satisfactory flight inspection reports were filed in April
2011, these reports were in error. These Federal airways are being
impacted by flight inspection delays due to the relocation of the
navigation aid, thereby delaying the effective date of June 30, 2011,
until further notice. This will allow better coordination for the
charting of the airspace.
    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.
Therefore, this regulation (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 so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only
affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
    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 the
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 modifies federal airways in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Delay of Effective Date

    The effective date of the final rule, Airspace Docket 11-AAL-1, as
published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2011 (76 FR 23687), is
hereby delayed from June 30, 2011, until further notice.

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 8, 2011.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-14711 Filed 6-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P