[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 34 (Friday, February 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9304-9306]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03240]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0299]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 24 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted January 10, 2015. The exemptions
expire on January 10, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On December 10, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (79 FR 73397). That notice listed 24 applicants' case
histories. The 24 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 24 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or

without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in the
horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the
colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber (49
CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 24
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, loss of vision, retinal detachment,
corneal scarring, retinal scar, amblyopia with refractive error,
enucleation, cataract, phthisical, refractive amblyopia, open globe
trauma, optic atrophy, amblyopic vision loss, aphakia, optic atrophy,
Lasik vision complication, and cyclodialysis. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed. Sixteen of the applicants were
either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood.
    The eight individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had them for a range of four to 44 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 24 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from 1.5 to 42
years. In the past three years, one of the drivers was involved in a
crash and two were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the December 10, 2014,
notice (79 FR 73397).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 24 applicants, one of the drivers was involved in a crash and two
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in

interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in
intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these
applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for
the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 24
applicants listed in the notice of December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73397).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 24 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 24 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Michael L. Boersma (ND)
Marc D. Butler (IL)
Roger P. Dittrich (IL)
Ralph V. Graven (OR)
Dennis R. Grear (SD)
Michael D. Halferty (IA)
Eric C. Hammer (MO)
Thomas F. Hannon (RI)
Robert K. Ipock (NC)
Kennard D. Julien (WA)
Peter M. Kirby (NJ)
William D. Koiner (TX)
Jesse L. Lichtenberger (PA)
David J. Nocton (MN)
Darren W. Pruett (TX)
Frederick E. Schaub (IA)
Michael R. Seldomridge (FL)
Michael G. Somma (NY)
Mark J. Stanley (CA)
Jason E. Thomas (ND)
Michael K. Toodle (NC)
Troy W. Weaver (PA)
Diane L. Wedebrand (IA)
Eddie L. Wilkins (VA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Dated: February 9, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-03240 Filed 2-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28379-28382]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12002]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0376; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-11]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment and Establishment of Air Traffic Service
Routes; Northeast United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend five Air Traffic Service (ATS)
routes and establish four new ATS routes. The existing routes that
would be amended are Q-42, J-60, V-16, V-229 and V-449. The proposed
new routes are Q-62, Q-406, Q-448 and Q-480. The FAA is proposing this
action to increase National Airspace System (NAS) efficiency, enhance
safety and reduce delays within the New York Metropolitan area
airspace.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
0376 and Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-11 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2011-0376 and Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-11) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0376 and Airspace Docket No.10-AEA-11.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the

public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Operations Support Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College
Park, GA 30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Background

    The New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area is served by
four major airports: Newark Liberty International, John F. Kennedy
International, La Guardia, and Philadelphia International, as well as
numerous smaller airports generating significant air traffic
operations. The close proximity of the airports, combined with high air
traffic volume and a complex airspace structure, contribute to less
efficient system operations and air traffic delays that can affect
airports across the United States. The FAA has been working on various
initiatives to increase the efficiency and reliability of the airspace
structure in order to maintain safety, respond to increasing aviation
operations and mitigate mounting air traffic delays. Key elements of
these efforts include improving user access to the NAS, expediting
arrivals and departures, and providing more flexible routing options.
Other benefits include reduced ATC system complexity, balanced air
traffic controller workload, reduced voice communications requirements
and reduced aircraft fuel consumption. This notice proposes a number of
ATS route changes to help address the above issues.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend jet route J-60, area navigation
(RNAV) route Q-42, and VOR Federal airways V-16, V-229 and V-449. In
addition, the FAA is proposing to establish four new RNAV routes
designated as Q-62, Q-406, Q-448 and Q-480.
    The proposed changes would facilitate the rerouting of westbound
air traffic departing the New York metropolitan area and would also
better sequence this departing traffic with en route overflight
traffic. The current traffic flows would be split with new routes and
navigation fixes added to reduce delays within the New York terminal
airspace. The proposed new and revised ATS routes would mostly be used
for departures but are also designed to more efficiently accommodate
aircraft landing within the Potomac Terminal Radar Approach Control
(TRACON) airspace. Potomac TRACON airspace includes, but is not limited
to, Washington Dulles International Airport, Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport, Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall
Airport, and their satellite airports. The proposed route changes would
also help segregate the Potomac TRACON arrivals from the high altitude
routes extending from the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center
(ARTCC) and New York ARTCC areas of responsibility.
    This action proposes to modify the following existing routes: J-60,
Q-42, V-16, V-229 and V-449. J-60 would be realigned at a point
northwest of the East Texas, PA, VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance
Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME), by inserting a dogleg to the north of
course, then bypassing the East Texas VOR/DME, and extending through a
new westgate departure fix, NEWEL, to be added in the vicinity of the
ELIOT fix. J-60 would then resume course to the Sparta, NJ, VORTAC.
This realignment would help reduce congestion and converging en route
aircraft flows and mitigate a choke point over the existing ELIOT
departure fix.
    RNAV route Q-42 would be amended by deleting the current segments
between the BRNAN, PA, waypoint (WP) and ELIOT, PA, WP and replacing
them with segments extending from BRNAN WP to new WPs HOTEE, PA; BTRIX,
PA; SPOTZ, PA, and terminating at a new waypoint ZIMMZ, NJ. This change
would also help reduce converging flows and reduce congestion.
    VOR Federal airways V-16 and V-229 would be amended by inserting a
dogleg north of their present courses by following the Kennedy VOR/DME
052[deg] (magnetic) radial northeast of Kennedy VOR/DME. V-16 would
then turn east bound, bypassing the Deer Park VOR/DME, then proceeding
to the Calverton VOR/DME and resuming its current course. V-229 would
also be modified along the Kennedy VOR/DME 052[deg] radial, then
turning eastbound to re-intercept its current course toward the
Bridgeport, CT, VOR/DME. The V-16 and V-229 changes are intended to
free up airspace to accommodate a climb corridor for John F. Kennedy
International Airport departures.
    V-449 currently extends between the Lake Henry, PA, VORTAC and the
Albany, NY, VORTAC. This route would be lengthened westward by adding a
new segment that extends between the Selinsgrove, PA, VORTAC and the
Lake Henry VORTAC via the Milton, PA, VORTAC. This change would
facilitate routing for arrivals into La Guardia Airport.
    Four new RNAV routes are being proposed and would be designated as
Q-62, Q-406, Q-448 and Q-480. Q-62 would enhance westward flows, reduce
congestion and provide flexibility for aircraft entering the Cleveland
ARTCC area and routings toward Chicago.
    Q-406, Q-448 and Q-480, along with the amended Q-42, would reduce
current converging en route flows that result from dependency on
ground-based navigation aids. The new Q-route segments would permit
some alignment with the, to be established, New York departure fixes
NEWEL, CANDR and ZIMMZ. These new fixes would be used for departures
from the New York metropolitan area airports to transition and merge
aircraft from the terminal structure into the high altitude en route
structure and vice versa. In addition, the new routes would relieve
congestion by providing alternate routings for aircraft landing at
airports outside the New York Metropolitan area.
    For the full descriptions of these proposed route changes, see The
Proposed Amendment section, below. Radials in the VOR Federal airway
descriptions below are stated in True degrees, except for the proposed
amended airway segments, which include both True and Magnetic values.
In a final rule, only True degrees would be stated.
    Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004, high altitude RNAV
routes are published in paragraph 2006, and VOR Federal airways are
published in

paragraph 6010, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18,
2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes, high altitude RNAV routes and
VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently
published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies the route structure as required to preserve the safe and
efficient flow of air traffic in the northeast United States.

Environmental Review

    This proposed action qualifies for a categorical exclusion in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, Paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, Dated August 18,
2010 and effective September 15, 2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J-60 [Amended]

    From Los Angeles, CA; via Paradise, CA; Hector, CA; Boulder
City, NV; Bryce Canyon, UT; Hanksville, UT; Red Table, CO; Mile
High, CO; Hayes Center, NE; Lincoln, NE; Iowa City, IA; Joliet, IL;
Goshen, IN; DRYER, OH; Philipsburg, PA; INT Philipsburg 100[deg]
(110[deg] M) and Ravine, PA 071[deg] (082[deg] M) radials; INT
Sparta, NJ, 253[deg] (264[deg] M) and Broadway, NJ, 295[deg]
(306[deg] M) radials; to Sparta, NJ.
* * * * *

Paragraph 2006 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

Q42 Kirksville, MO (IRK) to ZIMMZ, NJ [Amended]

Kirksville, MO (IRK)                        VORTAC                               (Lat. 40[deg]08'06'' N., long. 92[deg]35'30'' W.)
STRUK, IL                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]14'04'' N., long. 90[deg]18'22'' W.)
Danville, IL (DNV)                          VORTAC                               (Lat. 40[deg]17'38'' N., long. 87[deg]33'26'' W.)
Muncie, IN (MIE)                            VOR/DME                              (Lat. 40[deg]14'14'' N., long. 85[deg]23'39'' W.)
HIDON, OH                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]10'00'' N., long. 81[deg]37'27'' W.)
BUBAA, OH                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]10'27'' N., long. 80[deg]58'17'' W.)
PSYKO, PA                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]08'37'' N., long. 79[deg]09'13'' W.)
BRNAN, PA                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]08'07'' N., long. 77[deg]50'07'' W.)
HOTEE, PA                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]20'36'' N., long. 76[deg]29'37'' W.)
BTRIX, PA                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]36'06'' N., long. 75[deg]49'11'' W.)
SPOTZ, PA                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]45'55'' N., long. 75[deg]22'59'' W.)
ZIMMZ, NJ                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]48'11'' N., long. 75[deg]07'25'' W.)

                                                                     * * * * * * *
Q62 NOLNN, OH to SARAA, PA [New]
NOLNN, OH                                   WP                                   (Lat. 41[deg]14'04'' N., long. 84[deg]38'12'' W.)
WEEVR, OH                                   WP                                   (Lat. 41[deg]13'21'' N., long. 84[deg]13'04'' W.)
PSKUR, OH                                   WP                                   (Lat. 41[deg]09'16'' N., long. 82[deg]42'57'' W.)
FAALS, OH                                   WP                                   (Lat. 41[deg]02'51'' N., long. 80[deg]52'40'' W.)
ALEEE, OH                                   WP                                   (Lat. 41[deg]00'28'' N., long. 80[deg]31'54'' W.)
QUARM, PA                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]49'45'' N., long. 79[deg]04'39'' W.)
BURNI, PA                                   FIX                                  (Lat. 40[deg]39'25'' N., long. 77[deg]48'14'' W.)
MCMAN, PA                                   FIX                                  (Lat. 40[deg]38'16'' N., long. 77[deg]34'14'' W.)
VALLO, PA                                   FIX                                  (Lat. 40[deg]37'37'' N., long. 77[deg]26'18'' W.)
Ravine, PA                                  (RAV) VORTAC                         (Lat. 40[deg]33'12'' N., long. 76[deg]35'58'' W.)
SUZIE, PA                                   FIX                                  (Lat. 40[deg]27'12'' N., long. 75[deg]58'22'' W.)
SARAA, PA                                   FIX                                  (Lat. 40[deg]26'22'' N., long. 75[deg]53'16'' W.)

Q406 Broadway, NJ (BWZ) to Barnes, MA (BAF) [New]

Broadway, NJ (BWZ)                          VOR/DME                              (Lat. 40[deg]47'54'' N., long. 74[deg]49'19'' W.)
JEETR, NY                                   WP                                   (Lat. 41[deg]08'30'' N., long. 74[deg]05'46'' W.)
BASYE, NY                                   FIX                                  (Lat. 41[deg]20'37'' N., long. 73[deg]47'55'' W.)

TRIBS, CT                                   WP                                   (Lat. 41[deg]39'29'' N., long. 73[deg]19'03'' W.)
BIGGO, CT                                   FIX.                                 (Lat. 41[deg]57'21'' N., long. 73[deg]04'05'' W.)
Barnes, MA (BAF)                            VORTAC                               (Lat. 42[deg]09'43'' N., long. 72[deg]42'58'' W.)

Q448 Pottstown, PA (PTW) to Barnes, MA (BAF) [New]
Pottstown, PA (PTW)                         VORTAC                               (Lat. 40[deg]13'20'' N., long. 75[deg]33'37'' W.)
LANNA, NJ                                   FIX                                  (Lat. 40[deg]33'35'' N., long. 75[deg]01'40'' W.)
JEETR, NY                                   WP                                   (Lat. 41[deg]08'30'' N., long. 74[deg]05'46'' W.)
BASYE, NY                                   FIX                                  (Lat. 41[deg]20'37'' N., long. 73[deg]47'55'' W.)
TRIBS, CT                                   WP                                   (Lat. 41[deg]39'29'' N., long. 73[deg]19'03'' W.)
BIGGO, CT                                   FIX.                                 (Lat. 41[deg]57'21'' N., long. 73[deg]04'05'' W.)
Barnes, MA (BAF)                            VORTAC                               (Lat. 42[deg]09'43'' N., long. 72[deg]42'58'' W.)

Q480 ZANDR, OH to Kennebunk, ME (ENE) [New]

ZANDR, OH                                   FIX                                  (Lat. 40[deg]00'19'' N., long. 81[deg]31'58'' W.)
Bellaire, OH (AIR)                          VOR/DME                              (Lat. 40[deg]01'01'' N., long. 80[deg]49'02'' W.)
LEJOY, PA                                   FIX                                  (Lat. 40[deg]00'12'' N., long. 79[deg]24'54'' W.)
VINSE, PA                                   FIX                                  (Lat. 39[deg]58'16'' N., long. 77[deg]57'21'' W.)
BEETS, PA                                   WP                                   (Lat. 39[deg]57'20'' N., long. 77[deg]26'59'' W.)
HOTEE, PA                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]20'36'' N., long. 76[deg]29'37'' W.)
BTRIX, PA                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]36'06'' N., long. 75[deg]49'11'' W.)
SPOTZ, PA                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]45'55'' N., long. 75[deg]22'59'' W.)
CANDR, NJ                                   WP                                   (Lat. 40[deg]58'02'' N., long. 74[deg]57'30'' W.)
JEFFF, NJ                                   WP                                   (Lat. 41[deg]14'46'' N., long. 74[deg]27'43'' W.)
Kingston, NY (IGN)                          VOR/DME                              (Lat. 41[deg]39'56'' N., long. 73[deg]49'20'' W.)
LESWL, CT                                   WP                                   (Lat. 41[deg]53'31'' N., long. 73[deg]19'20'' W.)
Barnes, MA (BAF)                            VORTAC                               (Lat. 42[deg]09'43'' N., long. 72[deg]42'58'' W.)
Kennebunk, ME (ENE)                         VORTAC                               (Lat. 43[deg]25'32'' N., long. 70[deg]36'49'' W.)

                                                                      * * * * * * *

Paragraph 6010 VOR Federal Airways.

V-16 [Amended]

    From Los Angeles, CA; Paradise, CA; Palm Springs, CA; Blythe,
CA; Buckeye, AZ; Phoenix, AZ; INT Phoenix 155[deg] and Stanfield,
AZ, 105[deg] radials; Tucson, AZ; Cochise, AZ; Columbus, NM; El
Paso, TX; Salt Flat, TX; Wink, TX; INT Wink 066[deg] and Big Spring,
TX, 260[deg] radials; Big Spring; Abilene, TX; Bowie, TX; Bonham,
TX; Paris, TX; Texarkana, AR; Pine Bluff, AR; Marvell, AR; Holly
Springs, MS; Jacks Creek, TN; Shelbyville, TN; Hinch Mountain, TN;
Volunteer, TN; Holston Mountain, TN; Pulaski, VA; Roanoke, VA;
Lynchburg, VA; Flat Rock, VA; Richmond, VA; INT Richmond 039[deg]
and Patuxent, MD, 228[deg] radials; Patuxent; Smyrna, DE; Cedar
Lake, NJ; Coyle, NJ; INT Coyle 036[deg] and Kennedy, NY, 209[deg]
radials; Kennedy; INT Kennedy 040[deg] (052[deg] M) and Calverton,
NY, 261[deg] (274[deg]M) radials; Calverton; Norwich, CT; Boston,
MA. The airspace within Mexico and the airspace below 2,000 feet MSL
outside the United States is excluded. The airspace within
Restricted Areas R-5002A, R-5002C, and R-5002D is excluded during
their times of use. The airspace within Restricted Areas R-4005 and
R-4006 is excluded.

V-229 [Amended]

    From Patuxent, MD; INT Patuxent 036[deg] and Atlantic City, NJ,
236[deg] radials; Atlantic City; INT Atlantic City 055[deg] and
Colts Neck, NJ, 181[deg] radials; INT Colts Neck 181[deg] and
Kennedy, NY, 209[deg] radials; Kennedy; INT Kennedy 040[deg]
(052[deg] M) and Calverton, NY, 261[deg] (274[deg] M) radials; INT
Calverton 261[deg] (274[deg]) and Kennedy 053[deg] (065[deg] M)
radials; INT Kennedy 053[deg] and Bridgeport, CT, 200[deg] radials;
Bridgeport; Hartford, CT; INT Hartford 040[deg] and Gardner, MA,
195[deg] radials; Gardner; Keene, NH; INT Keene 336[deg] and
Burlington, VT, 160[deg] radials; to Burlington. The airspace within
R-5002B is excluded during times of use. The airspace below 2,000
feet MSL outside the United States is excluded.

V-449 [Amended]

    From Selinsgrove, PA; Milton, PA; INT Milton 064[deg] (073[deg]
M) and Williamsport, PA 109[deg] (118[deg] M) radials; Lake Henry,
PA; DeLancey, NY; Albany, NY.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 10, 2011.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations & ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-12002 Filed 5-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 190 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 61745]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21596]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

    Docket Numbers: RP19-351-004.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing 2020 Settlement Rates to be
effective 11/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/23/20.
    Accession Number: 20200923-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/5/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1200-001.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Correction to Compliance Filing to
CP17-476-002 to be effective 9/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/23/20.
    Accession Number: 20200923-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/5/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1207-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker Filing--Effective
November 1 2020 to be effective 11/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/23/20.
    Accession Number: 20200923-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/5/20.

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

    Dated: September 24, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21596 Filed 9-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54570-54571]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR16-12-000]

Grand Mesa Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Amended Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on August 9, 2016, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2)(2015), Grand Mesa
Pipeline, LLC (Grand Mesa), a subsidiary of NGL Energy Partners LP,
filed an amended petition for a declaratory order to provide greater
shipper flexibility and make further changes, all as more fully
explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    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 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 August 22, 2016.

    Dated: August 10, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19471 Filed 8-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 1905]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00213]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form 10, OMB Control No. 3235-0064, SEC File No. 270-051.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for approval of extensions on the following:
    Form 10 (17 CFR 249.210) is used by the Commission to register
securities pursuant to Section 12(b) and Section 12(g) (15 U.S.C.
78l(b) and 78l(g)) of the Exchange Act of 1934. Form 10 requires
financial and other information about such matters as the registrant's
business, properties, identity and remuneration of management,
outstanding securities and securities to be registered and financial
condition. The information provided by Form 10 is intended to ensure
the adequacy of information available to investors about the company.
Form 10 takes approximately 215.210 hours per response to prepare and
is filed by approximately 238 respondents. We estimated that 25% of the
215.210 hours per response (53.802 hours) is prepared by the company
for an annual reporting burden of 12, 805 hours (53.802 hours per
response x 238 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    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.
    Please direct your written comment to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 6, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00213 Filed 1-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


the U.S. allocations for 2006 if CFC
MDIs were not imported from Europe in
2006. A second commenter noted that
EPA proposed to allocate 1,002.40 MT
of CFCs for MDIs whereas the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol authorized 1,100
MT and suggested that the 2006
allocations could be raised to the upper
limit established in the Decision due to
the IVAX situation. This commenter
indicated that because in the past MDI
producers have only utilized the rights
that they felt were critical to meet
evolving supply/demand, there is
limited risk associated with the full
allocation of available rights and notes
that because excess CFCs will need to be
destroyed, essential use inventories will
actually become a financial liability and
producers will avoid overproduction of
CFC MDIs and excessive purchase of
CFC propellant.
One commenter believes that the
Agency does not fully understand the
restrictions on the availability of stocks
of CFCs and that EPA’s inaccurate
understanding of the matter led to
proposed allocations that are too low.
They believe that misleading
information in the May 2005 TEAP
Progress Report on the availability for
the sale of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)’s
excess pre-1996 CFC propellant has led
FDA and EPA to assume that 605 MT of
pre-1996 CFCs held by GSK would be
available to all potential users even
though GSK will only sell these CFCs to
four companies that do not have a need
for the material. The commenter also
believes that in determining the size of
Armstrong’s allocation, the Agency
assumed that Armstrong could obtain
additional CFCs from Schering-Plough.
Two commenters are of the opinion
that Armstrong Pharmaceuticals’ request
for an additional 180 MT of CFCs
should be denied and recommended
that Armstrong not be granted any CFC
allocations, including the 147.50 MT
granted in the proposed rulemaking.
Based on figures provided by Armstrong
Pharmaceuticals, the commenter claims
that Armstrong Pharmaceuticals has
more than enough CFCs to serve its
market share without receiving any
allocation for 2006. To support this
claim, the commenter stated that
Armstrong Pharmaceuticals may
manufacture as many as 6.4 million
MDIs in 2006, requiring 147 MT of
CFCs, which can be met by their
stockpile of at least 195 MT of CFCs
(based on the difference between the
CFCs needed to manufacture 3.29
million MDIs in 2005, and the amount
of CFCs purchased by Armstrong in
2005).
One commenter indicated it believed
Armstrong Pharmaceuticals made
several inaccurate and misleading
statements during the April 21, 2006
public hearing. These include the
company’s assertion, to support its
request for an increased 2006 allocation,
that the European Community did not
allocate any CFCs for the use in the
production of albuterol MDIs, and
therefore that 21.4 million imported
albuterol MDIs were lost to the U.S.
market. According to the commenter,
IVAX never supplied more than 14
million CFC MDIs to U.S. markets. In
addition, the commenter also stated that
in late 2005, the European Commission
allocated 180 MT of CFCs to IVAX for
production of albuterol MDIs to be
exported to the U.S. The commenter
wished to correct Armstrong
Pharmaceuticals’ claim that the 605 MT
of GSK’s pre-1996 CFCs is only
available to four companies that no
longer require CFCs for MDIs. This
commenter states that these companies
require CFCs for the production of
essential MDIs. A second commenter
indicated that GSK did not provide any
misleading information concerning the
sale of its pre-1996 CFC supply. A third
commenter indicated that her company
did have a need for, and purchased,
CFCs from the GSK pre-1996 stockpile.
EPA believes that the underlying
premise of the essential use exemption
program is to provide for the continued
production and consumption of CFCs
needed to ensure patient safety. EPA
concurs with the comment that
historically, companies have only used
the allowances they needed and that
production of CFCs in excess of the
amount needed by a company would
create a liability in that such material
would have to be destroyed or used by
another essential use. However,
allocations are based on determinations
of medical necessity.
Since the October 2005 determination
by FDA, fewer albuterol CFC MDIs have
entered the market because IVAX
stopped production. The market has
also experienced an increase in the
number of HFA MDIs. In making its
determination on the amount of CFCs
that are medically necessary, FDA looks
at factors such as the number of medical
device units required to meet patient
demand and the amount of CFCs
already owned by MDI manufacturers.
FDA informs us that they have been
closely monitoring the albuterol supply
in response to spot shortages,
particularly of albuterol CFC MDIs, in
late winter and spring of 2006. Based on
up-to-date information, there is an
adequate supply of albuterol MDIs to
meet patient needs in the U.S., as the
production capacity for the albuterol
HFA MDIs has increased substantially
in the first half of 2006 and is expected
to continue to increase. While albuterol
HFA MDI capacity is expected to
continue to increase throughout 2006
and beyond, FDA has not determined a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:25 Oct 03, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM
04OCR1

58507
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 192 /Wednesday, October 4, 2006 /Rules and Regulations
reduction from the proposed allocations
for albuterol MDIs because the
projections FDA has heard indicate that
there will be a continuing need for
albuterol CFC MDIs through all of 2006.
FDA is also concerned that some of the
projections are not sufficiently reliable
to provide a basis for a determination
that could result in shortages of this
necessary drug, if expectations are not
met. Therefore, EPA is not altering the
proposed allocation of allowances in
this final rule to either increase
allocations or decrease them.
EPA was fully aware of the terms
regarding the resale of the 605 MT of
CFCs previously owned by GSK and
was provided with a copy of the
contract. EPA shared the terms of the
contract with FDA. Further, as EPA has
stated previously, both agencies only
consider amounts of stocks owned by a
given MDI manufacturer in determining
the appropriate level of essential use
allocation. Therefore, stocks not owned
by an MDI manufacturer and future
potential commercial arrangements for
the sale of such stocks did not affect the
allocations.
In regard to concerns about the
increased cost, see section II.F of this
preamble document on the transition to
CFC alternatives.
One commenter argued that EPA
should raise the total level of allocations
and pointed to the terms of sale of 605
MT of GSK’s pre-1996 CFC inventory as
a reason to support such an action. This
commenter argues that the terms of sale
have made it difficult to determine both
the level and distribution of CFC
allocations, which could cause concern
about how fluid the market may be at
responding to patients’ needs. The
commenter further points to the
potential that some producers involved
in the CFC-to-HFA propellant transition
may choose to redirect their production
away from CFC-based products, while
not releasing unutilized allocation rights
to other producers for competitive
reasons, thus causing further restrictions
on availability of CFCs.
As described above, EPA was fully
aware of the restrictions on the resale of
the 605 MT formerly owned by GSK. In
light of the fact that none of that
material may be resold to the essential
use companies that manufacture singly
moiety albuterol MDIs, the concerns of
the commenter regarding the difficulty
of determining ‘‘both the level and
distribution of CFC allocations’’ and
‘‘how fluid the market may be at
responding to patients’ needs’’ would
not apply to those companies that are
receiving exemptions to manufacture
single moiety albuterol MDIs because
these companies are not permitted to
purchase any of the 605 MT to which
the commenter is referring. Further, the
Agency looks at holdings of CFCs stocks
on a manufacturer-by-manufacturer
basis. Only those quantities owned by
an MDI manufacturer are assessed in
determining their overall allocation
needs. Thus, if the terms of resale on the
GSK material contributed to some
difficulties in the fluidity of the CFC
propellant market, it should have no
bearing on meeting patient demand for
MDIs since these materials are excluded
from the Agency’s assessment until they
are owned by an essential use company.
The commenter’s second concern that
companies that are transitioning to an
HFA-based alternative will not be
inclined to sell or otherwise make their
allowances available to a company that
is still producing a product in a CFC
format is immaterial. If a company is
increasing production of its HFA
product and decreasing its CFC product
at the same rate, there is no need for a
second company to increase its
production of CFC product since the
total number of units on the market
remains the same and is sufficient to
protect patient safety.
One commenter stated that EPA must
fully consider how the CFC allocations
will affect moieties for which there are
no alternatives—i.e., that a too-generous
allocation for CFC albuterol MDIs that
are being phased out could result in a
backlash against the remaining essential
use products, some of which do not yet
have alternatives. The commenter noted
that the 2006 allocation is significantly
reduced from what EPA or the U.S.
Government requested from the
international community, yet albuterol
comprises the majority of the allocation.
To that end, the commenter encourages
EPA to consider whether the allocation
in the proposed rule takes into account
the rapidly changing market for
albuterol, noting that the allocation
could be based on 6-to-12-month-old
information, and asks the Agency to
ensure that the moieties that really need
CFCs will have CFCs until they
approach the reformulation stage. A
second commenter concurred with this
sentiment and expressed the opinion
that it is in the best interests of patients
and the environment if the availability
of essential use CFCs is preserved for
the production of essential MDIs for
which alternatives are not yet available
but are under development. This second
commenter stated that recent albuterol
shortages illustrate the potential
disruption to patient care if medication
is unavailable and further stated that
this risk would be significantly
exacerbated in a situation where non-
CFC alternatives were not available.
Therefore, the commenter recommends
that, rather than allocate any volumes
for Schering-Plough and Armstrong
Pharmaceuticals, EPA hold those
volumes for a possible emergency
allocation later in the year for those
companies not manufacturing single-
moiety albuterol MDIs.
EPA and FDA carefully consider the
requirements for all essential uses of
CFCs, including those non-albuterol
MDIs that may continue to be essential
uses beyond 2008. The domestic and
international consideration of the
essentiality of a product is technically
based. Most of the 2006 allocation is for
albuterol MDIs, consistent with both
domestic and international technical
reviews. At the time of proposal of the
2006 essential use rule, EPA and FDA
were not aware of any current market
conditions that would alter the CFC
requirements for 2006 essential uses.
Further, as described earlier in this
document, more recent information has
not indicated that there is a significant
change in requirements for 2006. With
the coming December 2008 ban on the
sale of single moiety albuterol CFC
MDIs, EPA and FDA anticipate that
there may be a rapidly changing market
that would affect the 2007 essential use
allocation. The Agencies will monitor
the situation and make any adjustments
that are necessary in the 2007 proposed
and final rules.
EPA considered and rejected the
commenter’s suggestion that EPA hold
allowances proposed for Schering-
Plough and Armstrong Pharmaceuticals
as an emergency reserve for non-
albuterol products. EPA received a
determination from FDA as to the
volume of CFCs required for non-
albuterol products and FDA has
informed us that that those volumes,
along with stocks held by the
manufacturers, are sufficient to protect
public health. Additional allowances
are not medically necessary. Since
allowances expire on December 31,
2006, any recommended ‘‘emergency’’
allowances would have to be expended
by that date. As previously stated, there
is no anticipated shortage of 2006 CFCs
for non-albuterol uses. Lastly, comments
submitted by companies that have non-
albuterol products also indicate that the
levels proposed by EPA are sufficient
for their 2006 needs. Therefore, EPA
does not believe it is necessary to create
an emergency reserve for non-albuterol
uses with 2006 allowances.
One commenter indicated that in
granting allowances, EPA should not
increase one company’s allocation at the
expense of a second company’s, but
instead any additional allocations
should come from the difference
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:25 Oct 03, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM
04OCR1

58508
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 192 /Wednesday, October 4, 2006 /Rules and Regulations
3
See ‘‘1998 Report of the Aerosols, Sterilants,
Miscellaneous Uses, and Carbon Tetrachloride
Technical Options Committee,’’ pp. 58–59.
4
See ‘‘UNEP Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel April 1998 Report’’ at p. 16, sec.
1.2.4.
between the amount authorized by the
Parties, 1,100 MT, and the amount
allocated by the Agency, 1,002.40 MT.
This commenter also stated that it is
satisfied with its proposed 2006
allocation and that it represents the
minimum amount required to meet the
market demand for the commenter’s
product. A second commenter indicated
satisfaction with its proposed allocation.
In this action, EPA is not changing the
2006 allocations to individual
companies, or in total, from the amounts
proposed.
C. Consideration of Stocks of CFCs in
the Allocation of Essential Use
Allowances
One commenter urged EPA to clarify
that ‘‘operational supply’’ encompasses
not only the amount of CFCs needed to
meet MDI demand for a particular year,
but also a ‘‘safety stock.’’ This
commenter believes a stock of up to 12
months of forward demand is prudent,
given that there is now a single supplier
in the U.S. and a long lead time
associated with revalidating an
interrupted plant, and that this is
consistent with the view of the Aerosols
and Miscellaneous Uses Technical
Options Committee (ATOC) expert
panel. The commenter states that this
3
view has also been adopted by the
TEAP, which recommended to the
Parties that companies be permitted to
maintain a one-year safety stock of
CFCs.
4
In addition, this commenter suggests
that EPA take into account blend
requirements and only count stock
blended in the needed proportion when
calculating the safety stock limit. The
commenter notes that the pre-1996
stockpile recently made available by
GlaxoSmithKline comprises only CFC–
11 and CFC–12, but to the extent that
the commenter’s company sources its
needs from that stock, it will be
unusable if it is not supplemented by
CFC–114. This commenter also believes
that EPA should take into account a
company’s need to maintain a safety
stock for each of its foreign affiliates, as
no excess supply is maintained at
European production sites or certain
other affiliates. The commenter
explained that the European
Commission takes into account a
company’s global supply when
determining allocations, forcing
companies to maintain an operational
supply for their European facilities as
well as their U.S. facilities. This
situation also results in the expenditure
of two allowances for each metric ton of
CFCs transferred from U.S. to European
facilities.
This commenter notes that the
conversion of safety stock to ‘‘just in
time’’ supply will be made as the end
date for the company’s transition
becomes clearer. Given the cost of
destruction and the ‘‘point of sale’’ ban
that will render the company’s
stockpiles of no use when its CFC
products are deemed non-essential, this
commenter states that it has every
incentive to avoid excess stockpiles.
In assessing the amount of new CFC
production required to satisfy 2006
essential uses, EPA and FDA applied
the terms of Decision XVII/5 including
provisions on stocks of CFCs that
indicate Parties should allocate such
that manufacturers of MDIs maintain no
more than a one-year operational
supply. FDA’s current practice is to first
calculate the quantity of CFCs that a
manufacturer needs for MDIs in the year
in question and then subtract from that
quantity any CFC stocks owned by that
MDI manufacturer exceeding a one-year
operational supply. The remainder, if a
positive number, is the quantity of
newly produced or imported CFCs
needed by that manufacturer. Consistent
with the language of Decision XVII/5,
FDA has informed EPA that it considers
the quantity of CFCs owned by each
manufacturer, rather than the total
supplies owned by all entities. EPA
does not read Decision XVII/5 as
endorsing a safety stock in excess of the
one-year operational supply specifically
mentioned in the Decision.
EPA’s proposed allocation did not
take the blend of CFCs into account in
determining the size of a manufacturer’s
stocks and the ensuing amount of new
CFCs required. EPA does not currently
collect data on the specific CFCs that
comprise the stocks owned by the MDI
manufacturer. EPA agrees that it would
be reasonable to take into account the
type of CFC needed for MDI production
if EPA had such data.
Two commenters indicated that in
determining a company’s pre-allocation
‘‘operational supply,’’ EPA and FDA
should count all stocks owned or
controlled by a company, including
stocks at its production facility, in
transit, on order, or stored off-site.
FDA evaluated stocks owned by an


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76400-76402]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29950]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0189]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 15 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective December 17, 2013. The exemptions
expire on December 17, 2015.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On October 23, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 15 individuals and requested
comments from the public (78 FR 63295). The public comment period
closed on November 22, 2013, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 15 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 15 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 20 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the October 23, 2013, Federal
Register notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Basis for Exemption Determination

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

Conditions and Requirements

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

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 15 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Steven R. Auger (NH), James L. Barnes (GA), Travis D. Clarkston
(IN), Steven M. Ference (CT), Allen D. Goddard (MO), Jerry M. Hicks
(WV), Bobby H. Johnson (GA), Michael P. Mahan (NY), Kenneth B. Maynard,
Jr.

(NH), Will Norsworthy (AL), Walter A. Przewrocki, Jr. (PA), Keith E.
Pulliam (MO), Richard A. Treadwell, Sr. (ME), James R. Troutman (PA),
and William E. Wyant III (IA) from the ITDM requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under ``Conditions and
Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the 1/exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: December 4, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-29950 Filed 12-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22732-22733]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-536-002.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: BGE submits Errata to
Compliance Filing in Docket No. ER15-536-001 to be effective 2/2/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150417-5271.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1066-001.
    Applicants: Red Horse Wind 2, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to February 18, 2015 and March 27, 2015 Red
Horse Wind 2, LLC tariff filings.
    Filed Date: 4/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150417-5270.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1527-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Joint
OATT Amendment to Schedule 4 to be effective 6/17/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150417-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1528-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Attach
P Revisions--Implementation of the OATI Preemption & Competition Module
to be effective 6/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150417-5243.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1529-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2015-04-17_Unreserved Use
Revenue Distribution Methodology to be effective 5/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150417-5274.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and

Sec.  385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary
to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 17, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09472 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24994-24995]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11170]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2016-0005]

Preparations for the 33rd Session of the UN Sub-Committee of
Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of
Labor.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise interested persons that on Tuesday,
June 20, 2017, OSHA will conduct a public meeting to discuss proposals
in preparation for the 33rd session of the United Nations Sub-Committee
of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS) to be held July 10 through July 12,
2017, in Geneva, Switzerland. OSHA, along with the U.S. Interagency GHS
(Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals) Coordinating Group, plans to consider the comments and
information gathered at this public meeting when developing the U.S.
Government positions for the UNSCEGHS meeting. OSHA also will give an
update on the Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC).
    Also, on Tuesday, June 20, 2017, the Department of Transportation
(DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
will conduct a public meeting (See Docket No. PHMSA-2017-0037 Notice
No. 2017-02) to discuss proposals in preparation for the 51st session
of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods (UNSCETDG) to be held July 3 to July 7, 2017, in
Geneva, Switzerland. During this meeting, PHMSA is also requesting
comments relative to potential new work items that may be considered
for inclusion in its international agenda. PHMSA will also provide an
update on recent actions to enhance transparency and stakeholder
interaction through improvements to the international standards portion
of its Web site.

DATES: Tuesday, June 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Both meetings will be held at the DOT Headquarters
Conference Center, West Building, Conference Rooms 8, 9 and 10, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Times and Locations: PHMSA public meeting: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
EDT, Conference Rooms 8, 9 and 10. OSHA public meeting: 1:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m. EDT, Conference Rooms 8, 9 and 10.
    Advanced Meeting Registration: The DOT requests that attendees pre-
register for these meetings by completing the form at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/STXPWNX. Failure to pre-register may delay your
access into the DOT Headquarters building. Additionally, if you are
attending in-person, arrive early to allow time for security checks
necessary to access the building. Conference call-in and ``live
meeting'' capability will be provided for both meetings.
    The conference dial-in information for the UN meetings is below.

Toll Free:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Access code: 3614708

    Specific information on call-in and live meeting access will be
posted when

available at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/international under
Upcoming Events. This information will also be posted on OSHA's Hazard
Communication Web site on the international tab at: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/hazcom_international.html#meeting-notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: At the Department of Transportation,
please contact Mr. Steven Webb or Mr. Aaron Wiener, Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    At the Department of Labor, please contact Ms. Maureen Ruskin, OSHA
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Washington
DC 20210, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OSHA Meeting: OSHA is hosting an open
informal public meeting of the U.S. Interagency GHS Coordinating Group
to provide interested groups and individuals with an update on GHS-
related issues and an opportunity to express their views orally and in
writing for consideration in developing U.S. Government positions for
the upcoming UNSCEGHS meeting.
    General topics on the agenda include:
     Review of Working papers
     Correspondence Group updates
     Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Update
    Information on the work of the UNSCEGHS including meeting agendas,
reports, and documents from previous sessions, can be found on the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Transport
Division Web site located at the following web address: http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_welcome_e.html. The UNSCEGHS
bases its decisions on Working Papers. The Working Papers for the 33rd
session of the UNSCEGHS are located at: https://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc4/c42017.html.
    Informal Papers submitted to the UNSCEGHS provide information for
the Sub-committee and are used either as a mechanism to provide
information to the Sub-committee or as the basis for future Working
Papers. Informal Papers for the 33nd session of the UNSCEGHS are
located at: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc4/c4inf32.html.
    In addition to participating at the Public meeting, interested
parties may submit comments on the Working and Informal Papers for the
33rd session of the UNSCEGHS to the docket established for
International/Globally Harmonized System (GHS) efforts at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. OSHA-2016-0005.
    The PHMSA Meeting: The Federal Register notice and additional
detailed information relating to PHMSA's public meeting will be
available upon publication at: http://www.regulations.gov/ (Docket
No.PHMSA-2017-0037, Notice No. 2017-02), and on the PHMSA Web site at:
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/international.
    PHMSA will host the meeting to gain input from the public
concerning proposals submitted to the UNSCETDG for the 21st Revised
Edition of the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods Model Regulations, which may be implemented into
relevant domestic, regional, and international regulations from January
1, 2021. During this meeting, PHMSA is also soliciting input relative
to preparing for the 51th session of the UNSCE TDG as well as potential
new work items which may be considered for inclusion in its
international agenda.
    Copies of working documents, informal documents, and the meeting
agenda may be obtained from the United Nations Transport Division's Web
site at: https://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc3/c32017.html.
http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/danger.html.

Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Dorothy
Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8
of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657), and Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), (Jan. 25, 2012).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 18, 2017.
Dorothy Dougherty,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2017-11170 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28546-28547]
[DOCID:fr16my08-137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2008-19]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before June 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-
0219 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette K. Kovite,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Transport Airplane Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, or Frances Shaver, (202) 267-
9681, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 12, 2008.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2008-0219.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  26.11(g).
    Description of Relief Sought: Boeing requests an exemption from the
requirements to develop and make available to affected persons
Electrical Wiring Interconnection System (EWIS) instructions for
continued airworthiness for their Boeing Models 707 and 720 on the
basis that these airplanes are not subject to an operational rule
requiring an update of their maintenance programs. Boeing states that
these airplanes are not currently operated commercially in the United
States nor are they expected to operate in the United States in the
future.

 [FR Doc. E8-11011 Filed 5-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P