[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49132-49136]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19581]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72837; File No. SR-CME-2014-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to 2014 ISDA
Definitions

August 13, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on August 11, 2014, Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Inc. (``CME'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by CME. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of the proposed changes to CME's clearing rules (the
``CDS Product Rules'') is to (i) incorporate references to revised
Credit Derivatives Definitions, as published by the International Swaps
and Derivatives Association, Inc. (``ISDA'') on February 21, 2014 (the
``2014 ISDA Definitions''), which are the successor definitions to the
2003 Credit Derivatives Definitions published by ISDA and as
supplemented in 2009 (together, the ``2003 ISDA Definitions'') and (ii)
provide greater clarity with respect to the operation of certain
provisions in the CDS Product Rules. CME is submitting the proposed
amendments to the CDS Product Rules to incorporate references to the
2014 ISDA Definitions. The effectiveness of the Proposed CME Rules is
intended to coincide with the date on which the credit derivatives
market is expected to transition to the 2014 ISDA Definitions, which is
currently anticipated to be September 22, 2014. As such, the Proposed
CME

Rules will become effective on September 22, 2014 or on such later date
that CME otherwise determines. To the extent that the credit
derivatives market does not transition to the 2014 ISDA Definitions,
the Proposed CME Rules will not become effective.
    The text of the proposed change is also available at the CME's Web
site at http://www.cmegroup.com, at the principal office of CME, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements
concerning the purpose and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. CME has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    CME is submitting the proposed amendments to the CDS Product Rules
to incorporate references to the 2014 ISDA Definitions to be effective
by the proposed industry implementation date of September 22, 2014. It
is CME's intention that, following the date on which the 2014 ISDA
Definitions are implemented, the 2014 ISDA Definitions will apply to
both (i) open positions cleared by CME (the ``Converting Contracts'')
and (ii) new CDS contracts cleared by CME, consistent with market
practice. In furtherance of this, CME proposes to make conforming
changes throughout the CDS Product Rules to refer to and/or conform to
the 2014 ISDA Definitions. Additionally, CME proposes to add provisions
to the CDS Product Rules to provide for the deemed amendment of all
Converting Contracts on the date on which the 2014 ISDA Definitions are
implemented.
a. Key 2014 ISDA Definition Changes
    The 2014 ISDA Definitions make changes to a number of the standard
terms with respect to CDS contracts when compared to the 2003 ISDA
Definitions. Key changes include the introduction of new provisions
relating to:
    (i) The settlement of credit events relating to financial and
sovereign reference entities by delivery of assets other than bonds or
loans that constitute deliverable obligations,
    (ii) Transactions that would be impacted by a government bail-in of
certain financial reference entities,
    (iii) Standard reference obligations for certain more frequently
traded reference entities, and
    (iv) Other technical amendments and improvements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ISDA Press Release describing the 2014 Definitions at
http://www2.isda.org/news/isda-publishes-isda-2014-credit-derivatives-definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of particular note in relation to the CME's proposed changes to the
CDS Product Rules are the impact of the modifications to the 2014 ISDA
Definitions relating to (i) the Successor provisions and (ii) the
inclusion of Asset Package provisions. Notwithstanding the proposed
changes to the CDS Product Rules relating to Asset Package provisions,
none of the CDS products that CME currently clears are anticipated to
be subject to and/or impacted by such changes.
b. Description of Proposed CME Rule Changes
    The proposed changes will primarily provide for the conversion of
existing contracts which are currently based on the 2003 ISDA
Definitions into contracts based on the 2014 ISDA Definitions in
conformance with the anticipated Protocol and allow for new cleared CDS
products to incorporate the 2014 Definitions.
    CME proposes to amend Chapters 800, 801, 802, 804, and 805 of the
CDS Product Rules to align them with the 2014 ISDA Definitions. A
concise description of the changes relating to the 2014 ISDA
Definitions is set out below. Several provisions are being revised to
include references to the 2014 ISDA Definitions and the DC Secretary,
as appropriate. Non-substantive conforming changes and numbering
changes have been made as well.
1. Chapter 800 (Credit Default Swaps)
    Introductory language has been added to CME Rule 80001
(Definitions) to consolidate provisions relating to which definitions
will govern Chapters 800-805. Corresponding deletions have been made to
CME Rule 80101 (Scope of Chapter) and CME Rule 80501.A (Scope of
Chapter). Other than the reference to the new 2014 ISDA Definitions,
the CDS Product Rules are substantively unchanged by this modification.
    CME Rule 80001 (Definitions), has been amended to include new
definitions for, among other things, ``2003 ISDA Credit Derivatives
Definitions,'' ``2014 Credit Derivatives Definitions,'' ``2014
Definitions Transaction,'' ``Asset Package Cash Settlement Amount,''
``Asset Package Notice,'' ``CME Successor Resolution Request Date,''
``Converting Contract,'' ``Declaration of Successor,'' and
``Implementation Date'' to conform and adapt the CDS Product Rules to
the 2014 ISDA Definitions. In addition, the definition of ``DC Rules''
and ``Credit Derivatives Definitions'' have been deleted, as they will
no longer be relevant following the implementation of the 2014 ISDA
Definitions, and the definition of ``Tax'' has been amended and updated
in accordance with certain changes to the 2014 ISDA Definitions. The
definition of ``Contract Elections'' has been revised to correct a typo
and correctly reference the ``Initial Payment Payer'' and the
definition of ``Eligible Contract Participant (``ECP'')'' has been
revised to include a specific reference to the relevant Commodity
Exchange Act provision referred to therein. Chapter 800 (Credit Default
Swaps) has also been revised to include certain other clarifying and
conforming changes related to the incorporation of the 2014 ISDA
Definitions.
2. Chapter 801 (CDS Contracts)
    A clarifying change has been made to CME Rule 80102 (Eligible
Contract Participant) to make clear the requirement that a CDS
Participant be an ECP, pursuant to at least one of the applicable limbs
of the definition provided in Section 1a(18) of the Commodity Exchange
Act. In addition, a clarifying change has been made to CME Rule 80103.B
(Acceptance of CDS by the Clearing House and Creation of CDS Contracts)
to state that the potential for a separate agreement referred to in the
second paragraph is subject to applicable law.
    CME Rule 80104 (Clearing Self-Referencing CDS Contracts) has been
revised to correctly reference the ``North American Single Name CDS
Contract.''
3. Chapter 802 (CDX Index Untranched CDS Contracts)
    CME Chapter 802 (CDX Index Untranched CDS Contracts) has been
revised to update the definition of ``CDX Untranched Terms'' to include
a reference to the new ``2014 Supplement,'' the standard documentation
for use in documenting standard CDX transactions incorporating the 2014
ISDA Definitions, anticipated to be published by Markit North America,
Inc. on or about September 22, 2014 to incorporate the 2014 ISDA
Definitions. Additionally, provisions have been

added to CME Rule 80201 (Scope of Chapter) to effect the amendment of
all Converting Contracts on the date on which the 2014 ISDA Definitions
are implemented, and authorizing the Clearing House to make such
additional amendments or modifications to the 2014 Supplement as it
deems reasonably necessary in order to give effect to the incorporation
of the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions, as this document has
yet to be published and may require certain amendments in the clearing
context. Within CME Rule 80201 (Scope of Chapter), provisions relating
to CDS Component Transactions have also been updated to clarify the
already existing position that, notwithstanding that CDX Component
Transactions will not be fungible with North American Single Name CDS
Contracts, there may still be margin offsets between them, pursuant to
the CDS Product Rules.
    CME Rule 80202.F (Credit Event Backstop Date) has been revised to
update the original amending provision relating to the definition of
``Credit Event Backstop Date'' in order to conform it to the changes in
the 2014 ISDA Definitions relating to the definition of ``Credit Event
Backstop Date.'' Additionally, changes have been made to remove
provisions relating to Credit Events and/or Credit Event Resolution
Request Dates occurring prior to June 20, 2009, as these are historic
provisions within the definition that are no longer relevant.
    CME Rule 80202.I (Declaration of Credit Events) has been revised to
conform provisions relating to a Declaration of Credit Event to the
updates in the 2014 ISDA Definitions given that concepts contained in
CME Rule 80202.I (Declaration of Credit Events) are now captured by the
newly defined terms of ``Notice Delivery Period'' and ``Post Dismissal
Additional Period'' in the 2014 ISDA Definitions. Therefore these
changes are entirely non-substantive.
    CME Rule 80202.J (Event Determination Date) has been revised to
update the original amending provision relating to the definition of
``Event Determination Date'' in order to conform it to the changes in
the 2014 ISDA Definitions relating to the definition of ``Event
Determination Date.''
    CME Rule 80202.K (Succession Event Backstop Date), CME Rule 80202.L
(Declaration of Successor) and CME Rule 80202.M (CDX Index Versions)
have been revised to conform the Successor provisions contained therein
(including, in particular, the definition of ``Succession Event
Backstop Date'' and ``Declaration of Succession Event'') to the 2014
ISDA Definitions as they relate to Successor determinations (as more
fully described above). ``Succession Event Backstop Date'' has been
renamed ``Successor Backstop Date'' and ``Declaration of Succession
Event'' has been renamed ``Declaration of Successor'' in accordance
with the 2014 ISDA Definitions. Additionally, changes have been made to
remove provisions relating to Succession Events and/or Succession Event
Resolution Request Dates occurring prior to June 20, 2009, as these are
historic provisions within the definition of Succession Event Backstop
Date that are no longer relevant. Additionally, CME Rule 80202.M (CDX
Index Versions) has also been updated to make reference to the
determination of a Substitute Reference Obligation in respect of a Non-
Standard Reference Obligation or publication of a revised SRO List in
accordance with the 2014 ISDA Definitions.
    A new CME Rule 80202.N (Standard Reference Obligation) has been
added to conform the CDS Product Rules to the additions made in the
2014 ISDA Definitions relating to Standard Reference Obligations by
providing that documentation evidencing any CDX Component Transaction
which is a Converting Contract will be automatically deemed to be
amended by insertion of ``Standard Reference Obligation: Applicable''
(to the extent that such provision is not already applicable) and
modifications relating to the introduction of ``Standard Reference
Obligation'' have also been made to CME Rule 80203.A (Rules). The
previous CME Rule 80202.N (De Minimis Cash Settlement) has been deleted
in order to bring the CDS Product Rules in line with current CDS
documentation and market practices with regard to de minimis cash
settlement, as provided for in the CDX Untranched Terms.
    A new CME Rule 80202.O (Not Contingent Deliverable Obligation
Characteristic) has been added to provide that CDX Untranched Terms
will be amended by deleting the words ``Not Contingent'' to address the
removal of this concept in the 2014 ISDA Definitions.
    A new CME Rule 80202.P (NOPS Cut-off Date) has been added to modify
Section 8.10(b) of the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions to add
a new proviso relating to decisions by the CDS Risk Committee (``CDS
RC'') to resolve that a Credit Event has occurred with respect to a CDX
Index Untranched CDS Contract for which there is Publicly Available
Information. This change is necessary in order to conform the
application of the 2014 ISDA Definitions with respect to CDS contracts
cleared by CME with the existence of the CDS RC.
    CME Rule 80203.C (Industry Protocol) has been amended to remove
outdated references to the March 2009 Protocol and the July 2009
Protocol.
    CME also proposes various other clarifying and conforming changes
throughout Chapter 802 (CDX Index Untranched CDS Contracts) related to
the incorporation of the 2014 ISDA Definitions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Staff has removed a reference to a proposed rule change in
the Appendix to Chapter 802. Staff confirmed with CME on August 13,
2014 that CME does not intend to make that rule change as part of
this rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Chapter 804 (CME CDS Risk Committee: Part A)
    Chapter 804 (CME CDS Risk Committee: Part A) has been revised to
(i) apply only in connection with 2014 Definitions Transactions and
(ii) update the scope of the chapter generally to conform more
accurately to the 2014 ISDA Definitions. While CME does not currently
clear any CDS products to which the 2003 ISDA Definitions will apply
following the implementation of the 2014 ISDA Definitions, a ``Part A''
distinction has been added to Chapter 804 in anticipation of the
potential need to bifurcate Chapter 804 to allow for separate treatment
of CDS products that may be cleared by CME in the future and to which
the 2003 ISDA Definitions will apply.
    CME Rule 80401 (Certain Functions and Authorities of the CDS RC)
has been revised to update the scope of the definition of ``Issue'' in
accordance with changes to the 2014 ISDA Definitions by (i) amending
references and provisions relating to succession events and or
determinations (as more fully described above), (ii) including
reference to Non-Standard Reference Obligations and Eligible
Information, (iii) removing references to Accreted Amount and Accreting
Obligation, (iv) adding provisions relating to Asset Package Credit
Events (as more fully described above), and (v) adding provisions
relating to the determination of Reference Entity mergers with a Seller
and other matters of contractual determination. In addition,
modifications have been made in order to ensure alignment of the CDS
Product Rules with the current market practices (as mandated by ISDA)
to clarify the circumstances under which the CDS RC may make such
determinations to avoid determinations that are inconsistent with DC
determinations.

    CME Rule 80402.A (Publicly Available Information) has been revised
to align with the changes to the definition of ``Publicly Available
Information'' in the 2014 ISDA Definitions.
    Cross references in CME Rule 80404.A.E (Limitation of Liability and
Waivers) have been updated to reflect changes in section numbering in
the 2014 ISDA Definitions.
5. Chapter 805 (CME CDS Physical Settlement: Part A)
    Chapter 805 (CME CDS Physical Settlement: Part A) has been revised
to (i) apply only in connection with 2014 Definitions Transactions and
(ii) update the scope of the chapter generally to conform more
accurately to the 2014 ISDA Definitions. Specifically, amendments have
been made in relation CME Rule 80502.A.C (Notices) and CME Rule 80503.A
(Physical Settlement of Non DVP Obligations) to include provisions
relating to Asset Package Delivery (as more fully described above).
While CME does not currently clear any CDS products to which the 2003
ISDA Definitions will apply following the implementation of the 2014
ISDA Definitions, a ``Part A'' distinction has been added to Chapter
805 in anticipation of the potential need to bifurcate Chapter 805 to
allow for separate treatment of CDS products that may be cleared by CME
in the future and to which the 2003 ISDA Definitions will apply.
    CME Rule 80502.A (Matched Pairs) has been updated to provide
additional detail in relation to the matching process. The additions do
no substantively alter the CDS Product Rules but rather, seek to
provide greater clarity with respect to the current matching process.
    Changes have been made to CME Rule 80507.A (Clearing House
Guarantee of Matched Pair CDS Contracts) and CME Rule 80508.A (Failure
to Perform Under Matched Pair CDS Contracts) to align the matching
process with the general physical settlement provisions of CME as set
out in Chapter 7 (Delivery Facilities and Procedures).
    Additionally, Chapter 805 (CME CDS Physical Settlement: Part A) has
been revised to include references, where appropriate, to the 2014 ISDA
Definitions, Asset Package Delivery and the DC Secretary, and
corresponding changes to provision numbering have been made.
2. Statutory Basis
    CME believes the proposed changes to the CDS Product Rules are
consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act, including Section
17A of the Exchange Act \5\ and the applicable regulations thereunder.
The proposed changes to the CDS Product Rules are designed to promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements,
contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Exchange Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2014 ISDA Definitions are intended to become effective on
September 22, 2014 as part of an industry-wide comprehensive review of
the entire ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions, the first of its kind
in over a decade. The proposed changes set out in the 2014 ISDA
Definitions reflect market experience in recent years and are chiefly
intended to address perceived concerns and/or shortcomings in relation
to the 2003 ISDA Definitions. As CME plans to accept for clearing,
contracts referencing the industry standard 2014 ISDA Definitions by
the time of the planned industry-wide implementation on September 22,
2014 (and to convert certain existing contracts to the new definitions
as of that date) the proposed changes to the CDS Product Rules will be
necessary to achieve the clearing and/or conversion (as applicable) of
such CDS contracts. CME believes that the proposed changes to the CDS
Product Rules accurately conform the CDS Product Rules to the 2014 ISDA
Definitions. As such, the proposed changes to the CDS Product Rules are
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and
transactions within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, CME facilitates physical settlement of CDS contracts.
The proposed amendments to the CDS Product Rules would also facilitate
the physical settlement process by amending the process to include
references to the 2014 ISDA Definitions, Asset Package Delivery and the
DC Secretary. In this regard, the additions do not substantively alter
the CDS Product Rules but rather, seek to update the process to reflect
references to the 2014 ISDA Definitions. These proposed amendments are
designed to permit CME to continue to offer physical delivery and as
such are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of CDS and to assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for
which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange
Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed changes to the CDS Product
Rules will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. CME
is submitting the proposed amendments to the CDS Product Rules to
incorporate references to the 2014 ISDA Definitions and are intended to
apply consistently across all clearing members. CME does not believe
that any of the proposed changes to the CDS Product Rules would
significantly affect the ability of clearing members or other market
participants to continue to clear CDS, or otherwise limit market
participants' choices for selecting clearing services. For the
foregoing reasons, the proposed changes to the CDS Product Rules do
not, in CME's view, impose any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on
competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the CDS Product Rules have not been
solicited, or received. CME will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by CME.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml), or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CME-2014-30 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2014-30. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's
Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2014-30
and should be submitted on or before September 9, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19581 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78895-78896]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27095]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property
Release at Madras Municipal Airport, Madras, Oregon

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(d),
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from Madras
Municipal Airport, in Madras, OR to waive the surplus property
requirements for approximately 5.22 acres of airport property located
at Madras Municipal Airport, in Madras, OR.
    The subject property is currently under lease with Wilbur-Ellis
Company. This property serves Wilbur Ellis Company and their
Agribusiness Division well because of its close proximity to both the
rail system (City rail spur and Burlington Northern Santa Fe main
track) and Highway 97/26. From this location, they import, export and
distribute various agricultural commodities throughout Central Oregon.
This release will enable the City of Madras to complete a promise made
in 1995 whereby the City agreed to diligently and aggressively pursue
the approval of the United States of America to sell the 5.22 acres to
Wilbur Ellis Company, if Wilbur Ellis were willing to relocate their
company to the Madras community thereby providing much needed jobs. The
estimated net proceeds from the subject property will be applied toward
the City's current five-year airport capital improvement plan or to
relocating a hangar at the airport that is called out to be moved in
the airport master plan. It has been determined through study and
master planning that the subject parcels will not be needed for
aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Effective Date: Comments must be received on or before December
9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Ms. Cayla Morgan, at the
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Documents are available for review by
appointment by contacting Ms. Cayla Morgan, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by contacting Mr. Jason Ritchie, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 28, 2016.
Jason Ritchie,
Acting Manager, Airports Division, Northwest Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-27095 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 172 (Friday, September 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 53507]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21989]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-95-000]

Delaware Public Service Commission, Maryland Public Service
Commission v. PJM Interconnection, LLC, Certain Transmission Owners
Designated Under Attachment A to the Consolidated Transmission Owners
Agreement, Rate Schedule FERC No. 42: Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on August 28, 2015, pursuant to sections 206 of
the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824(e), and Rule 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Delaware Public Service Commission and
Maryland Public Service Commission (Complainant) filed a formal
complaint against PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) and Certain
Transmission Owners Designated under Attachment A to the Consolidated
Transmission Owners Agreement, Rate Schedule FERC No. 42 (Respondent)
alleging that PJM tariff provisions requiring the use of a solution-
based DFAX methodology to allocate the costs of the Artificial Island
Project are unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory, in
violation of the Federal Power Act, as more fully explained in the
Complaint.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 17, 2015.

    Dated: August 28, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21989 Filed 9-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


July 15, 2003 L. John Iani Regional Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Recommendations for 8 hour Ozone Area Designations Dear Mr. Iani:

I am pleased to present to you my recommendations for air quality designations in the State of Oregon for the eight hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, as requested by your letter of March 31, 2003.

Based on quality assured, federal reference monitoring data collected in 2000, 2001 and 2002, all areas of Oregon are in compliance with the eight hour ozone public health standard. Therefore, in accordance with an Environmental Protection Agency guidance memorandum from Jeffrey Holmstead dated February 27, 2003, I recommend that the Environmental Protection Agency designate all counties in the state of Oregon " attainment/ unclassifiable".

If you have any questions, please contact Annette Liebe, Manager, Air Quality Planning, Air Quality Division, Department of Environmental Quality, at ( 503) 229 6919.

Sincerely,

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Enc: Summary of Oregon 8 hour Ozone Data, 2000 2002 cc: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority Salem Keizer Area Transportation Study Southwest Clean Air Agency ( WA)


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51968-51969]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2493-152]

Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-project use of project lands and waters.
    b. Project No.: 2493-152.
    c. Date Filed: July 15, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Snoqualmie Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: on the Snoqualmie River, in King, Washington.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Lynda Kupfer, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., M/S
PSE-09N, P. O. Box 90868, Bellevue, WA 98009-0868,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Kendall Cammermeyer, Puget Sound
Energy, Inc., M/S PSE-09N, P.O. Box 90868, Bellevue, WA 98009-0868,
(425) 462-3372, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Jake Tung,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: August 26, 2011.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters

can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. Please include the project number (P-2493-
152) on any comments or motions filed.
    k. Description of Application: The applicant's license authorizes
to construct a 0.15-mile-long, 13.8-kV, three-phase underground
transmission line to transfer power from the Plant 1 powerhouse to a
switching station located on the opposite bank of the Snoqualmie River.
The applicant instead proposes to construct a 0.06-mile-long, 115-kV,
three-phase overhead transmission line. The applicant indicates that:
(1) The proposed overhead line will simplify construction, achieve
operational economic efficiencies, and improve reliability; (2) the
proposed transmission line will be located on the licensee's fee-owned
property and easements that are currently within the project boundary;
and (3) no federally-owned lands are involved with or affected by this
amendment.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-2493) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the amendment application.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: August 12, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21159 Filed 8-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 42409]
[DOCID:fr02au07-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the Record Communications; Public Notice

July 26, 2007.
    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using

the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                                     Exempt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Docket No.               Date  received                    Presenter or  requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP06-459-000.....................         7-19-07  Hon. Michael LeVault.
2. Project No. 199-205..............         7-24-07  Allan Creamer/Dr. Stephanie Bolden \1\.
3. Project No. 1971-000.............         7-25-07  Susan Pengilly Neitzel.
4. Project No. 1971-079.............         7-26-07  Craig Jones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Summary of Telephone Conference.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14958 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 74505]
[DOCID:fr12de06-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-90-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Storage Cost
Reconciliation Mechanism Report

December 5, 2006.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2006, Southern Natural Gas Company
(Southern) tendered for filing its annual report pursuant to Section
14.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of its tariff.
    Southern states that copies of the filing were served upon
Southern's customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time December 12, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21083 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2444-2445]
[FR Doc No: 2011-567]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Ford Motor Company

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Ford Motor Company's (Ford)
petition for an exemption of the Fusion vehicle line in accordance with
49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard. This
petition is granted because the agency has determined that the
antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard equipment is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the 49 CFR Part
541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2012 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated September 21, 2010, Ford
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2012 Ford Fusion
vehicle line. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard
equipment for an entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
exemptions for one vehicle line per model year. Ford has petitioned the
agency to grant an exemption for its Fusion vehicle line beginning with
MY 2012. In its petition, Ford provided a detailed description and
diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the
antitheft device for the Fusion vehicle line. Ford will install its
``SecuriLock'' passive transponder-based electronic immobilizer
antitheft device as standard equipment on the vehicle line. Features of
the antitheft device will include an electronic key, ignition lock, and
a passive immobilizer. Ford stated that since it's MY 2006
introduction, the Fusion has been equipped with the ``SecuriLock''
device as standard equipment. The device does not incorporate an
audible or visual alarm as standard equipment however, Ford stated that
the Fusion vehicles will come equipped with a separate perimeter alarm
system that utilizes both a visible and audible alarm if unauthorized
access is attempted. Ford's submission is considered a complete
petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general
requirements contained in Sec.  543.5 and the specific content
requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    Ford stated that the devices integration of the transponder into
the normal operation of the ignition key assures activation of the
system. When the ignition key is turned to the ``start'' position, the
transceiver module reads the ignition key code and transmits an
encrypted message to the cluster. Validation of the key is determined
and start of the engine is authorized once a separate encrypted message
is sent to the powertrain control module/transmission control module
(PCM/TCM). The powertrain will function only if the key code matches
the unique identification key code previously programmed into the PCM.
If the codes do not match, the engine starter, ignition and fuel
systems will be disabled. Ford stated that the device functions
automatically each time an engine start sequence occurs. Therefore, no
owner/operator actions are required to deactivate the device.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Ford
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Ford
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Ford provided a
detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is
reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified
requirements for each test.
    Ford stated that incorporation of several features in both devices
further support reliability and durability of the device. Specifically,
some of those features include: encrypted communication between the
transponder, control function and the power train control module; no
moving parts; inability to mechanically override the device to start
the vehicle; and the body control module/remote function actuator and
the power train control module share security data that form matched
modules during vehicle assembly that if separated from each other will
not function in other vehicles. Ford stated that the Fusion will be
equipped with several other standard antitheft features (i.e., a hood
release, counterfeit resistant VIN plates, secondary VINs inscribed on
the body, and an exterior key lock that will be located only on the
driver door to limit cabin access). Ford also stated that the device's
encrypted transponder technology will make key duplication virtually
impossible.
    Additionally, Ford noted that with the prevalence of electronic
engine immobilizer systems on nearly all new

retail vehicles, the overall theft rates have been decreasing and the
theft rate for the Fusion vehicles have remained very close to the
overall theft rate trend. Specifically, the agency's data show that
theft rates for the Fusion for MYs 2006-2008 are 1.7314, 1.8161 and
1.8797 respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs data (2006-2008), the
theft rate for the Fusion vehicle line is well below the median at
1.8090.
    Ford compared the effectiveness of its antitheft device with
devices which NHTSA has previously determined to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of Part 541. Specifically, Ford provided
information on the reduction in the theft rate for other vehicle lines
equipped with the ``SecuriLock'' device. Ford's ``SecuriLock'' device
was first introduced as standard equipment on it's MY 1996 Mustang GT
and Cobra vehicle lines. The ``SecuriLock'' system was installed on the
entire Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment in MY 1997. Ford also
stated that the ``SecuriLock'' device has been installed as standard
equipment on all North American Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles
except for the F-Super Duty, Econoline and Crown Victoria Police
Interceptor vehicles. Ford stated that according to National Insurance
Crime Bureau (NICB) theft statistics, the 1997 model year Mustang with
``SecuriLock'' showed a 70% reduction in theft compared to its MY 1995
Mustang vehicles. Comparatively, Ford stated that there were 149 thefts
reported in 1997 and 500 thefts reported in 1995. Ford also stated that
the proposed device is very similar in design and implementation to the
device offered on the Ford Escape vehicle line. The agency granted
Ford's petition for exemption for the Escape vehicle line on April 18,
2008. Ford stated that it believes that the standard installation of
the ``SecuriLock'' device on the Fusion vehicle line would be an
effective deterrent against vehicle theft and that the low theft rate
experienced by the line in CY 2008 is likely to continue or improve in
future years.
    The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to
devices in other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted
exemptions. Based on the evidence submitted by Ford, the agency
believes that the antitheft device for the Fusion vehicle line is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that Ford has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Ford Fusion vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Ford
provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five
types of performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford's
petition for exemption for the Fusion vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR
part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from
the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f)
contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all
Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future
product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is
granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary
in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines
exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
    If Ford decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR Parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Ford wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under
this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's
exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: January 7, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-567 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33257-33259]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14884]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0711; FRL-9996-52-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Data
Requirements Rule for the 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Information Request (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit a renewal of an information collection request (ICR), ``Data
Requirements Rule for the 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Information Request (Renewal)''
(EPA ICR No. 2495.03), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control
No. 2060-0696) to the OMB for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed renewal
of the existing ICR for the Data Requirements Rule for the 1-Hour
Sulfur Dioxide Primary NAAQS (SO2 Data Requirements Rule),
which is currently approved through September 30, 2019. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0711, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered to be the official
comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make.
The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Larry D. Wallace, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C504-05,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about the EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: This ICR includes: (1) Estimates for ambient air
monitoring data reporting, and other supporting measurements, as well
as record keeping activities, and (2) estimates for emissions and
emissions-related information and ambient air dispersion modeling
reporting and activities, associated with the 40 CFR part 51
Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of Implementation
Plans, as they apply to the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
NAAQS.\1\ These data and information are collected by various state and
local air quality management agencies and reported to the EPA. State
and local air management agencies chose to submit either monitoring or
modeling information in order to meet the initial and on-going
requirements, as applicable, under the final SO2 Data
Requirements Rule (RIN 2060-AR19). 80 FR 51052 (August 21, 2015). This
ICR Renewal adopts (with some revisions) the estimates contained in the
initial ICR, covers the period 2019-2021, and includes estimates of the
information described above in regard to the on-going requirements
under the SO2 Data Requirements Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subpart J of part 51: Ambient Air Quality Surveillance
refers back to 40 CFR part 58; through the rest of this ICR,
reference will be made to part 58 for monitoring requirements and
part 51, Appendix W for modeling requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of monitoring stations, sampling parameters, and
frequency of data collection and submittal is expected to remain
relatively stable for October 1, 2019-Sepember 30, 2022, with decreases
possible if the EPA approves requests from air monitoring agencies to
shut down monitor(s) where the requirements to do so under the
SO2 Data Requirements Rule have been met. The number of
annual emissions reports is expected to remain relatively stable for
October 1, 2019-September 30, 2022, with decreases possible if the EPA
approves requests from air agencies to no longer be subject to the on-
going requirements, where the requirements to do so under the
SO2 Data Requirements Rule have been met. In accordance with
the requirements of the SO2 Data Requirements Rule, where an
air agency finds in the annual emissions report that emissions have
increased in an area, the state or the EPA may determine that the state
must submit updated air quality modeling data for the area to determine
whether or not the area is meeting the 2010 1-Hour SO2
Primary NAAQS .
    The SO2 Data Requirements Rule directed state, local,
and tribal air quality management agencies to provide data to initially
characterize current air quality in areas that contain large sources of
SO2 emissions, information that may be used in the NAAQS
designations and other processes. The rule also requires states to
continue to provide monitoring, modeling, and emissions data from a
subset of these

sources, that meet certain requirements under the rule, which may serve
to verify whether these areas continue to meet the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
    Through the SO2 Data Requirements Rule and the initial
ICR, the EPA required that states characterize ambient air quality
around sources with emissions that are greater than 2,000 tons per year
(tpy) or that were otherwise included as a listed source in accordance
with the Rule.\2\ Based upon 2011 emissions data, the ICR identified
approximately 412 sources of SO2 in 43 states that may
potentially be listed under the SO2 Data Requirements Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Pursuant to section 51.1203(a) of the SO2 Data
Requirements Rule, air management agencies were required to submit a
list of applicable sources of SO2 emissions in their
jurisdiction with emissions of 2,000 tpy or greater by no later than
January 15, 2016. See 80 FR 51087, August 21, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SO2 Data Requirements Rule described the criteria
for identifying the source areas where air agencies needed to
characterize SO2 air quality. It also described the process
and timetables by which air quality management agencies were required
to characterize air quality in areas around sources through ambient
monitoring and/or air quality modeling techniques and submit this data
to the EPA. The air quality data developed by the states in accordance
with the Rule is intended to be used by the EPA to assist in the
remaining round(s) of area designations for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, as well as in other areas, and to provide information which
would serve to verify whether areas are meeting the standard.
    For those air quality management agencies which elected to conduct
ambient air monitoring for areas containing listed DRR sources to
provide the necessary air quality data to EPA, the State and local air
quality management agencies are responsible for reporting ambient air
quality data information, as requested in this ICR, and will submit
these data electronically to the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) and
voluntary databases. Quality assurance/quality control records and
monitoring network documentation are also maintained by each state and
local agency, in AQS electronic format where possible. Although the
state and local air quality management agencies are responsible for the
operation of this air monitoring network, they may have opportunities
to work with industry to help support modeling exercises and/or
monitoring network installation, operations, and maintenance.
    For those air quality management agencies which elected to conduct
air quality modeling of the areas containing listed DRR sources to
provide the necessary air quality data to the EPA and which were
designated either unclassifiable/attainment or attainment/
unclassifiable based on modeling of actual emissions of the area, state
and local air quality management agencies are responsible for
submitting on-going data reports. In accordance with the SO2
Data Requirements Rule, these reports must be submitted annually as
either a stand-alone document made available for public inspection or
as an appendix to the air agency's Annual Monitoring Network Plan, and
are required to include the annual SO2 emissions of each
applicable source in each such area, provide an assessment of the cause
of any emissions increase from the previous year, and include a
recommendation from the air agency regarding whether additional
modeling is needed to characterize air quality in any area to determine
whether the area meets or does not meet the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
If the EPA requires that the air agency conduct updated air quality
modeling for the area, the air agency has 12 months to submit it to the
EPA.
    The information requirements included within this ICR are necessary
to provide the EPA with ambient air quality data, which includes
monitoring data, emissions data, and/or modeling data, to determine the
United States air quality status, to make attainment decisions with
respect to the NAAQS, to assist in developing necessary control
strategies in order to ensure attainment of the NAAQS, to assess
national trends in air pollution, to inform the public of air quality,
and to determine the population's exposure to various ambient air
pollutants. The EPA's goal of attaining the NAAQS in all areas of the
United States is directly dependent upon the availability of ambient
air quality data (monitoring, emissions, and/or modeling data)
requested in this information collection. Additionally, the EPA, state
and local air quality management agencies, environmental groups,
industrial groups, and academic organizations use these data to study
atmospheric chemistry, e. g., the formation and fate of SO2
to determine the most appropriate and effective control strategies
necessary to reduce air pollution.
    The principal legal authority for this information collection is
the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7410, and 7511a, from which
the 40 CFR part 51 regulations were promulgated. Under section 7403(c),
the Administrator is required to conduct a program of research,
testing, and development of methods for sampling, measurement,
monitoring, analysis, and modeling of air pollutants, specifically
including a requirement to establish a national network to monitor,
collect, and compile data with quantification of certainty in the
status and trends of air emissions and air quality.
    Sections 7410(a) and (k) contain the state implementation plan
(SIP) requirements, which include a requirement that each State submit
a SIP that: (1) Provides for the establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to
monitor, compile, analyze, and make available to the Administrator data
on ambient air quality and (2) provides for the performance of such air
quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of
predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any
air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a NAAQS, and
the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality
modeling to the designee as stipulated in the rule.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: State, local and tribal air
pollution management control agencies.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (see CAA), 42 U.S.C.
7403, 7410, and 7511a, from which the 40 CFR part 51 regulations were
promulgated).
    Estimated number of respondents: 21 for monitoring, and 170 sources
and 43 States for modeling.
    Frequency of response: Varies by requirement. Quarterly for
monitoring data and annually for on-going data verification reporting.
    Total estimated burden: 26,938 hours (per year) for monitoring
(specific hours for modeling not estimated, but labor costs are
included in the estimated cost for modeling below). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,538,895 (per year) for monitoring,
includes $189,246 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs
for monitoring and $5,100,000 (per year) for modeling.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 75, 931 hours per year
for the estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to the revised number of air
pollution control agencies monitoring to meet their requirements for
listed sources. There is a decrease of $7,260,000 for the sources
modeling. This decrease is due to the revised number of listed sources
for which states chose modeling to meet their requirements.

    Dated: June 27, 2019.
Scott Mathias,
Acting Director, Air Quality Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-14884 Filed 7-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35566]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16118]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010; FRL-9981-21--Region 8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff
Smelters Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces
the deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site
(Site) located in Sandy City, Salt Lake County, Utah, from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
the State of Utah, through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
(UDEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance, and five-year reviews,
have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.

DATES: This action is effective July 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES:
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the site information repositories.
    Locations, contacts, phone numbers and viewing hours are: Utah
Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City, UT 84047; Phone:
(801-944-7641); Hours: M-Th: 9 a.m.-9 p.m.; Fri-Sat: 9:00 a.m.-5:30
p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erna Waterman, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, EPR-SR,
Denver, CO 80202,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site, Sandy City, Salt Lake
County, Utah. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published
in the Federal Register (83 FR 25635-25638) on June 4, 2018.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
July 5, 2018. No public comments were received.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future
conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 16, 2018.
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]C

0
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended in the table by
removing the entry for ``UT, Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters, Sandy
City, P''.

[FR Doc. 2018-16118 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Amy_ L._ Farrell@ omb. eop. gov 08/ 27/ 2003 11: 18 AM To: Bill Harnett/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Bill Wehrum/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Arthur_ G._ Fraas@ omb. eop. gov, Paul_ R._ Noe@ omb. eop. gov Subject: rule ommission!

Hi Bills  FYI

In effective date section you state that " We have made conforming changes to the PSD regulations at 51.166( a)( 6)( i)..." These changes do not appear in the rule. ( note that the 12/ 31 rule did contain rule changes.) af


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26255-26257]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10410]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0554]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Comparative Price Information in Direct-to-Consumer
and Professional Prescription Drug Advertisements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on research entitled ``Comparative Price
Information in Direct-to-Consumer and Professional Prescription Drug
Advertisements.'' This study will investigate the impact of price
comparison information in direct-to-consumer (DTC) and health care
professional advertising for prescription drugs.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by July 7, 2014.

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

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

Comparative Price Information in Direct-to-Consumer and Professional
Prescription Drug Advertisements--(OMB Control Number 0910--NEW)

    Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300u(a)(4)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to health
information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C)) authorizes FDA to
conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in
carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.
    By their very nature, medical and health decisions are comparative
(e.g., treat versus not treat). For consumers, these decisions may
include the use of prescription drug products versus over the counter
products versus herbal

supplements, as well as one prescription brand versus another
prescription brand. Similarly, advertising is often comparative. In
prescription drug advertising, sponsors are permitted to include
truthful, non-misleading information about the price of their products
in promotion. This may extend to price comparison information, wherein
sponsors may include information about the price of a competing product
in order to make advantageous claims. Currently, when price comparisons
are made, the ad should also include context that the two drugs may not
be comparable in terms of efficacy and safety and that the acquisition
costs presented do not necessarily reflect the actual prices paid by
consumers, pharmacies, or third party payers. Despite the inclusion of
this additional information, there is concern that adding contextual
information about efficacy or safety is not sufficient to correct the
impression that the products are interchangeable and that price is the
main factor to consider. The Office of Prescription Drug Promotion
(OPDP) plans to investigate, through empirical research, the impact of
price comparison information and additional contextual information on
prescription drug product perceptions. This will be investigated in DTC
and healthcare-directed professional advertising for prescription
drugs.
    We will investigate perceptions about overall drug safety and
efficacy and perceptions of the comparator product. To examine
differences between experimental conditions, we will conduct
inferential statistical tests such as analysis of variance. With the
sample size described in this document, we will have sufficient power
to detect small-to-medium sized effects in the main study.
    Participants will be consumers who self-identify as having been
diagnosed with diabetes and physicians who are General Practitioners
(e.g., Family Practice, General Practice, Internal Medicine) and
Specialists (e.g., Endocrinology, Pain Management). All participants
will be 18 years of age or older. We will exclude individuals from the
consumer sample who work in healthcare or marketing settings because
their knowledge and experiences may not reflect those of the average
consumer. Recruitment and administration of the study will take place
over the Internet. Participation is estimated to take approximately 30
minutes.
    Physician and consumer participants will be randomly assigned to
view one of three possible versions of an ad (DTC or professional), as
depicted in table 1. One version will present information about the
price of the product relative to a competitor for the same indication
(price comparison information). Another version will present this
information with additional contextual information that the two drugs
may not be comparable in terms of efficacy and safety and that the
acquisition costs do not necessarily reflect actual prices paid. A
third version will have a claim about the price of the product but will
not present information about the price relative to a competitor, and
will act as a control.
    After viewing the ad, participants will respond to questions about
information in the ad. Preliminary measures are designed to assess
perception and understanding of product safety and efficacy; perception
and understanding of the additional contextual information; perceptions
of comparative safety and efficacy; and intention to seek more
information about the product. The questionnaire is available upon
request.

                                              Table 1--Study Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Type of price comparison
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                         Sample                                             Price information    No comparison
                                                         Price information     + additional       information
                                                                only             context           (control)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers (DTC ad)
Physicians (Professional ad)                             .................  .................  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                                     Table 2--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number of
                  Activity                       Number of     responses per   Total annual           Average burden per response           Total hours
                                                respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample outgo (pretests and main survey).....          41,110  ..............  ..............  ..........................................  ..............
Screener completes..........................           7,400               1           7,400  .03 (2 minutes)...........................             222
Eligible....................................           4,933  ..............  ..............  ..........................................  ..............
Completes, Pretests Phase 1.................             400               1             400  0.5 (30 minutes)..........................             200
Completes, Pretest Phase 2..................           1,000               1           1,000  0.5 (30 minutes)..........................             500
Completes, Main Study.......................           2,940               1           2,940  0.5 (30 minutes)..........................           1,470
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..........................................           2,392
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: May 1, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-10410 Filed 5-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76394-76395]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29952]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA-2013-0172]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its denial of 59 applications from individuals
who requested an exemption from the Federal vision standard applicable
to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the denials.
FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision
requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The
Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does not provide a
level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level
of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) drivers.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal vision standard for a renewable 2-year period if it
finds ``such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such an exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption
are set forth in 49 CFR part 381.
    Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 59 individual exemption requests on
their merit and made a determination that these applicants do not
satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of
the Federal exemption program. Each applicant has, prior to this
notice, received a letter of final disposition on the exemption
request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial
and constitute final Agency action. The list published in this notice
summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C.
31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
    The following 11 applicants had no experience operating a CMV:

Christina L. Anhock
Thomas R. Anthony
Brian Ashbaugh
Eric Betsuie
Eric P. Carr
Adrian L. Johnson
Bradford Kadubic
Dennis A. Mercer II
Elijah Miller
Jorge Monge
Marcus Robinson

    The following 9 applicants did not have 3 years of experience
driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:

Zoraida Bazan
Troy D. Blanton
Donald E. Cessna, Sr.
Douglas H. Huntsman
Mark A. Lane
James McClellan
Louis Pierson
Juan Ramirez
Phillip Starker

    The following 5 applicants did not have 3 years of recent
experience driving a CMV with the vision deficiency:
Aaron Gage
Daniel D. Henriquez
Dennis Hughey
Edward Rangel
Jeffrey M. Thorpe

    The following 9 applicants were denied for miscellaneous/multiple
reasons:

Travis Bennett
John D. Bowman
Don Gray
Bruce Gumtow
Gary S. Judds
Timothy M. Leonard
Thomas A. Martin, III
Rodney McMorran
Tyler R. Peebles

    The following applicant, Mark P. Huemann, was denied because his
vision was not stable for the entire 3-year period.
    The following 12 applicants met the current federal vision
standards. Exemptions are not required for applicants who meet the
current regulations for vision:

Joseph A. Basista
Thomas J. Bruce, Jr.
Barry Foster
Donald M. Gieseke
Marco J. Gonzalez
Rogelio Leyva
Martin R. Manner
Lee A. Mauk
John McKinney

John Rinehart
Scott J. Thompson, Jr.
Christopher M. Walters

    The following 10 applicants were denied because they will not be
driving interstate, interstate commerce, or not required to carry a DOT
medical card:

John H. Bass
Alton L. Carlisle
Timothy F. Dunn
Wesley S. Gnade
Jerry E. Guilford
Glenn F. Hipp
Shane Nelson
Nelson P. Sanschagrin
Robert Schultz
Robert Tackitt

    Finally, the following 2 applicants perform transportation for the
federal government, state, or any political sub-division of the state.

Marty G. Eastman
Eric D. Kidd

    Issued on: December 3, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-29952 Filed 12-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P