[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 7822]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01426]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9031-4]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 01/09/2017 Through 01/13/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20170011, Draft, APHIS, Other, Revisions to USDA-APHIS 7 CFR
part 340 Regulations Governing the Importation, Interstate Movement,
and Environmental Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms, Comment
Period Ends: 05/22/2017, Contact: Cindy Eck<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170012, Final, TVA, TN, Bull Run Fossil Plant Landfill,
Review Period Ends: 02/21/2017, Contact: Anita E. Masters<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170013, Final, NPS, CA, Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation, Review
Period Ends: 02/21/2017, Contact: Brian Aviles<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170014, Draft, APHIS, Other, Regulation of the Importation,
Interstate Movement, and Intrastate Movement of Plant Pests, Comment
Period Ends: 03/20/2017, Contact: Tracy Willard<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170015, Final, USFS, AZ, Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange, Review
Period Ends: 02/21/2017, Contact: Randall Chavez<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20160263, Draft, USN, WA, EA-18G ``Growler'' Airfield
Operations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex, Comment Period Ends: 02/
24/2017, Contact: Sarah Stallings<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 11/10/2016; Extending Comment
Period from 01/25/2017 to 02/24/2017.

EIS No. 20160274, Draft, FHWA, NY, NYS Route 198 (Scajaquada
Expressway) Corridor Project, Comment Period Ends: 01/25/2017, Contact:
Peter Osborn<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 11/25/2016; Extending Comment
Period from 01/25/2017 to 02/08/2017.

EIS No. 20160319, Draft, BLM, CA, Central Coast Field Office Draft
Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Oil and Gas Leasing and
Development, Comment Period Ends: 04/06/2017, Contact: Melinda Moffitt
916-978-4376.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 01/06/2017; Extending Comment
Period from 02/21/2017 to 04/06/2017.

    Dated: January 17, 2017.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-01426 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41370-41371]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14745]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-815, OMB Control No. 3235-0769]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 139b

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

    Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') has, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), is
soliciting comments on the collection of information associated with
the Rule 139b (17 CFR 230.139b) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) (``Securities Act'') that was adopted by the
Commission on

November 30, 2018.\1\ The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Release No. 33-10580 (Nov. 30, 2018) [83 FR 64180 (Dec.
13, 2018)] (``Adopting Release''). Rule 139b became effective on
January 14, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As directed by the Fair Access to Investment Research Act of 2017
(Pub. L. 115-66, 131 Stat. 1196 (2017) (the ``FAIR Act''), the
Commission adopted rule 139b under the Securities Act to extend the
safe harbor under rule 139 to a ``covered investment fund research
report.'' Specifically, rule 139b provides a safe harbor to a broker-
dealer who publishes or distributes in the regular course of its
business research reports concerning one or more ``covered investment
fund(s)'' while participating in the distribution of a covered
investment fund's securities.
    In the Adopting Release, the Commission adopted the provision that
rule 139b include a standardized performance disclosure requirement.
The Commission believes that standardized performance presentation is
an appropriate requirement because investors tend to consider fund
performance a significant factor in evaluating or comparing investment
companies, and the requirement addresses potential investor confusion
if a communication were not easily recognizable as research as opposed
to an advertising prospectus or supplemental sales literature. Rule
139b requires that research reports about open-end funds that include
performance information must present it in accordance with paragraphs
(d), (e), and (g) of rule 482. Rule 139b also requires that research
reports about closed-end funds that include performance information
must present it in accordance with instructions to item 4.1(g) of Form
N-2. Performance measures calculated by broker-dealers are not required
to be kept confidential and there is no mandatory retention period. The
Commission anticipates that compliance with these performance measures
for each fund discussed in a research report, and for which the
performance measures apply, would increase compliance costs for broker-
dealers seeking to publish or distribute a covered investment fund
research report.
    It is difficult to provide estimates of the burdens and costs for
those broker-dealers that will include performance information in a
rule 139b research report. As discussed in the Adopting Release, this
is difficult to estimate because current data collected does not
reflect the affiliate exclusion, does not include the entire universe
of covered investment funds, and it is uncertain what percentage of
communications currently filed as rule 482 advertising prospectuses (or
rule 34b-1 supplemental sales materials) will instead be published in
reliance of rule 139b, as covered investment fund research reports.\2\
For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that 10% of the rule 482 and rule
34b-1 communications currently filed by broker-dealers with FINRA
(approximately 48,341) could be considered as rule 139b covered
investment fund research reports. We estimate that broker-dealers will
publish annually 4,834 (10% of 48,341) covered investment fund research
reports. Moreover, we assume for purposes of the PRA that all estimated
rule 139b research reports will include fund performance information.
We further estimate that 1,169 broker-dealers would likely be
respondents to the collection of information with a frequency of 4.1
responses per year.\3\ Additionally, we estimate that each research
report will require 3 hours of ongoing internal burden hours by a
broker-dealers' personnel to comply with the rule 139b collection of
information requirements, which for each broker-dealer is estimated to
be 12.3 internal burden hours.\4\ Accordingly, we estimate that the
standardized performance presentation requirements will result in an
average 12.3 annual hour burden per broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Adopting Release, supra note 1, n. 413 and accompanying
paragraph.
    \3\ From information provided by FINRA, for the period January
1, 2021 through December 31, 2021, there were an aggregate of 48,341
filings that were coded either as Rule 482 or Rule 34b1 filings.
Furthermore, for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31,
2021, the Commission estimates that there were 4,834 covered
investment fund research reports/1,169 broker-dealers = 4.1 annual
responses per broker-dealer.
    \4\ 4.1 annual responses per broker-dealer x 3 internal burden
hours = 12.3 annual internal burden hours per broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, we estimate that rule 139b's requirements will impose a
total annual internal hour burden of 14,379 hours on broker-dealers.\5\
We do not think there is an external cost burden associated with this
collection of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 12.3 annual internal burden hours * 1,169 broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This information collection is subject to the PRA and responses to
this collection of information requirement would not be mandatory for
broker-dealers seeking to rely upon rule 139b, but would be necessary
for those broker-dealers that would like to provide performance
information in their covered investment fund research reports.
Responses to the information collections will not be kept confidential.
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.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the 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 by September 12, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: July 6, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14745 Filed 7-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50205-50207]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20377]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0972, FRL-9932-52-Region 8]

Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010
NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of
Colorado to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements of
the Clean Air Act (Act, CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on March 12, 2008; lead (Pb) on
October 15, 2008; and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22,
2010. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state submit a SIP
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA.

DATES: This rule is effective September 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0972. All documents in
the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in the hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 8, Office of
Partnership and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays. An electronic copy of the State's SIP compilation is
also available at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are provided in section
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific
infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The
elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on June 1, 2015 (80
FR 30974).
    The NPR proposed approval of Colorado's submissions with respect to
the following infrastructure elements for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and
2010 NO2 NAAQS: (A), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD
requirements, (D)(i)(II) elements 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and (M); (B) for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS and
conditional approval of (B) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS; and
D(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
EPA will act separately on infrastructure element (D)(i)(I), interstate
transport elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The reasons for
our approvals are provided in detail in the NPR.

II. Response to Comments

    No comments were received on our June 1, 2015 NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the following infrastructure elements for the 2008
ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS: CAA 110(a)(2)
(A), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD requirements, (D)(i)(II)
elements 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
EPA is approving element (B) for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS and
conditionally approving (B) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Finally,
EPA is approving D(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb and 2010
NO2 NAAQS. EPA will act separately on infrastructure element
(D)(i)(I), interstate transport elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This action also corrects an error to a Federal Register
citation in our NPR (80 FR 30974, June 1, 2015) on page 30978. The
NPR incorrectly cites approval of the State's SIP-approved minor NSR
program at 68 FR 37744 rather than the correct citation of 44 FR
57401 (Oct. 5, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements
and disapproves other state law because it does not meet federal
requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 19, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse
gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 30, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52 APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.353 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.353  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
provided submissions to meet infrastructure requirements for the State

of Colorado for the 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, and 2010 NO2
NAAQS were received on December 31, 2012, July 26, 2012, and March 7,
2013, respectively. The State's Infrastructure SIP is approved with
respect to the 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS
with respect to section (110)(a)(1) and the following elements of
section (110)(a)(2): (A), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD
requirements, (D)(i)(II) elements 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and (M); (B) for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS and
conditional approval of (B) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS; and
D(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2015-20377 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 201 (Friday, October 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65674-65677]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22793]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0581; Product Identifier 2020-NM-057-AD; Amendment
39-21284; AD 2020-21-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-22-
08, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model
A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; and
Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes. The FAA is
also superseding AD 2018-17-19, which applied to certain Airbus SAS
Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -
131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231,
-232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131,
-211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes. The
FAA is also superseding AD 2019-19-15, which applied to certain Airbus
SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -
115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216,
-231, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes; and Model A321 series
airplanes. AD 2019-19-15 required revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations. This AD requires revising the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is incorporated by reference. This AD was prompted by a determination
that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 20, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 20,
2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
November 14, 2019 (84 FR 54480, October 10, 2019).

ADDRESSES: For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For the Airbus material identified in
this AD that continues to be IBR, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness
Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex,
France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.airbus.com. You
may view this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0581.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0581; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0080, dated April 1, 2020
(``EASA AD 2020-0080'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model
A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, and -153N
airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, -233, -
251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-
111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -252N, -253N, -
271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes.
Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not
included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore
does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-22-08, Amendment 39-18313 (80 FR
68434, November 5, 2015) (``AD 2015-22-08''). AD 2015-22-08 applied to
all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113,
-114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes;

Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
    The FAA also proposed to supersede AD 2018-17-19, Amendment 39-
19373 (83 FR 44460, August 31, 2018) (``AD 2018-17-19''). AD 2018-17-19
applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-
111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model
A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N
airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -
232, -251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes.
    The FAA also proposed to supersede AD 2019-19-15, Amendment 39-
19751 (84 FR 54480, October 10, 2019) (``AD 2019-19-15''). AD 2019-19-
15 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model
A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model
A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N
airplanes; and Model A321 series airplanes.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2020 (85 FR
43499). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed
to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations, as specified in an EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address the failure of certain life-
limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0080 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.
    This AD also requires Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1 Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations
(SL-ALI), Revision 06, Issue 02, dated November 30, 2018, which the
Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by
reference as of November 14, 2019 (84 FR 54480, October 10, 2019).
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,553 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2019-03-17 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate.
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions
to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-22-08, Amendment 39-18313
(80 FR 68434, November 5, 2015); AD 2018-17-19, Amendment 39-19373 (83
FR 44460, August 31, 2018); and AD 2019-19-15, Amendment 39-19751 (84
FR 54480, October 10, 2019); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2020-21-11 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21284; Docket No. FAA-2020-0581;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-057-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 20, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-22-08, Amendment 39-18313 (80 FR 68434,
November 5, 2015) (``AD 2015-22-08''); AD 2018-17-19, Amendment 39-
19373 (83 FR 44460, August 31, 2018) (``AD 2018-17-19''); and AD
2019-19-15, Amendment 39-19751 (84 FR 54480, October 10, 2019) (``AD
2019-19-15'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any

category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before November 13,
2019.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -
151N, and -153N airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -
252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -
251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX,
and -272NX airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the failure of certain life-limited
parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2019-19-15, with no changes. For airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before November 30, 2018: Within 90 days
after November 14, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-19-15),
revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate Airbus SAS A318/A319/A320/A321
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1 Safe Life
Airworthiness Limitations (SL-ALI), Revision 06, Issue 02, dated
November 30, 2018. The initial compliance time for doing the revised
actions is at the applicable time specified in Airbus SAS A318/A319/
A320/A321 ALS Part 1 Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations (SL-ALI),
Revision 06, Issue 02, dated November 30, 2018, or within 90 days
after November 14, 2019, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the
maintenance or inspection program revision required by paragraph (i)
of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Retained Restrictions on Alternative Actions and Intervals With a
New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2019-19-15, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(i) of this AD, after the maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative life
limits may be used unless approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0080, dated April 1, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0080'').
Accomplishing the maintenance or inspection program revision
required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph
(g) of this AD.

(j) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0080

    (1) The requirements specified in paragraph (1), (3), and (4) of
EASA AD 2020-0080 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0080 specifies revising ``the
AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD
requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate the ``limitations'' specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0080 within 90 days after the
effective date of this AD.
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0080 is at the applicable compliance
times specified in paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0080, or within 90
days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (4) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0080 does not apply
to this AD.

(k) New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals are allowed except as specified in the
provisions of the ``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2020-
0080.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (m) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2019-19-15 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2020-0080 that are
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0080 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
November 20, 2020.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0080,
dated April 1, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
November 14, 2019 (84 FR 54480, October 10, 2019).
    (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) Part 1 Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations (SL-ALI), Revision
06, Issue 02, dated November 30, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For EASA AD 2020-0080, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (6) For Airbus material, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness
Office-EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex,
France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.airbus.com.
    (7) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call

206-231-3195. This material may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0581.
    (8) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 5, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-22793 Filed 10-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53141-53142]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20644]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2021-0091]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    This document provides the public notice that on September 7, 2021,
Wisconsin Central Ltd. (WCL) and Canadian National Railway Company
(collectively referred to as CN) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) under 49 CFR 211.51 to temporarily suspend for
testing purposes, certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR 232.205, Class I brake test-initial
terminal inspection. Although CN filed its petition under Sec.  211.51,
FRA concluded that considering this request under the provisions of 49
CFR part 211, subpart C, Waivers, would be more appropriate.
Accordingly, FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2021-0091.
    Specifically, CN seeks relief from the requirements of Sec.
232.205(c)(ii)(B) for testing purposes which would allow CN to operate
trains with a combined air flow to the brake pipe above 90 cubic feet
per minute (CFM) with no individual source of air having a flow greater
than 60 CFM or 15 psi gradient. CN seeks a short duration of relief to
physically test braking reaction and train performance, under
conditions of higher air flow, specifically caused by the addition of
air sources (air cars or locomotives) that yield a more even pressure
throughout the brake pipe. CN seeks to perform the testing on the WCL
Chicago to Winnipeg corridor and the CN Sprague Subdivision, from
November 2021 to April 2022, to test under cold temperature conditions.
CN has previously conducted similar testing through an exemption
granted by Transport Canada between February and April 2020 and
November 2020 and March 2021. CN reports that the program yielded
positive results, demonstrating that when multiple air sources were
used, trains operated at a healthy pressure level in cold weather,
which resulted in cars applying an even level of braking effort and
greater braking efficiency.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a

hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral
comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing,
before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their
request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by November 8, 2021 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic
form of any written communications and comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to
better inform its processes. 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 https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-20644 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 9910]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03252]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9778-8; CERCLA-04-2012-3777]

Circle Environmental 1 and 2 Sites; Dawson,
Terrell County, GA; Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection
Agency has entered into a settlement with thirty-four (34) parties to
recover past cost resulting from a removal action at the Circle
Environmental 1 and 2 Superfund Sites located in
Dawson, Terrell County, Georgia.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until
March 14, 2013. The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V.
Painter. Submit your comments by Site name Circle Environmental
 1 and 2 Site by one of the following methods:
     www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/enforcement/enforcement.html.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: January 15, 2013.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund
Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-03252 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 Summary of Summary of EPA Ethics Review EPA Ethics Review McFarlane, P., Freestone, S. ( 1999) A Randomised Double Blind Placebo Controlled Study with Azinphos Methyl to Determine the No Effect Level on Plasma and RBC Cholinesterase Activity after Repeat Doses. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Clinical Research, Ltd., Tranent, UK; Laboratory Project ID 013580. 634 p. ( MRID 45476101) 2 AZM 28 AZM 28 Day Oral Study Day Oral Study

Conducted at Inveresk Clinical Research in 1999

Subjects resident in clinic throughout testing

Medical supervision throughout testing

Post dose follow up until return to baseline 3 AZM AZM " Framework Framework"

1. Value  Not published or disseminated  Societal value not addressed in reports 2. Scientific Validity: Defer to others 3. Subject Selection  Adult male volunteers from pool at laboratory  No evidence of use of vulnerable groups 4 AZM AZM " Framework Framework"

 2 4. Risk Benefit Ratio  Risks adequately described to subjects  Risk minimization not discussed  Societal or other benefits not addressed  Weighing of societal benefits against risks to subjects not addressed  Subjects compensated £ 1500 5 AZM AZM " Framework Framework"

 3 5. Independent Ethics Review  Protocol approved by Inveresk Independent Ethics Committee  Committee members named, but independence from investigators and freedom from conflicts of interest not addressed  Neither the protocol amendment restating study objectives nor reports of the adverse events occurring during the course of the study were reported to the ethics committee 6 AZM AZM " Framework Framework"

 4 6. Informed Consent  Consent was obtained from all subjects  Volunteer information covered procedure and possible physical effects adequately, but was less complete on other topics, especially the nature and distribution of benefits  potentially confusing references to the " supervising doctor" and " the company", neither of whom was identified 7 AZM AZM " Framework Framework"

 5 7. Respect for Subjects  Subjects' privacy was protected  Subjects were free to withdraw without penalty 8 AZM Prevailing Standard AZM Prevailing Standard

Conducted in the UK in 1999

Cites and asserts compliance with Declaration of Helsinki ( 1996)

Protocol promises compliance with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice ( CPMP/ ICH/ 135/ 95) 9 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

Basic Principle # 2: "[ The]

experimental protocol . . . should be transmitted for consideration, comment and guidance to a specially appointed committee independent of the investigator and the sponsor. . . ."

EPA Comment: The independence of the reviewing ethics committee is inadequately documented 10 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 2

Basic Principle # 4: " Biomedical research involving human subjects cannot legitimately be carried out unless the importance of the objective is in proportion to the inherent risk to the subject."

EPA Comment: The protocol and study report are silent with respect to the nature and distribution of benefits of the research,

and incomplete in describing the risks to the subjects. 11 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 3

Basic Principle # 5: " Every . . .

project . . . should be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks in comparison with foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others."

EPA Comment: If a careful assessment was conducted it was not reported. 12 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 4

Basic Principle # 12: " The research protocol should always contain a statement of the ethical considerations involved . . . ."

EPA Comment: There is no such statement in the protocol 13 AZM Summary AZM Summary

There are some gaps in the record, but gaps are not " clear and convincing evidence".

There is no evidence that the research was fundamentally unethical.

Some deficiencies are apparent relative to the cited 1996 Declaration of Helsinki.

We welcome the Board's advice on the significance of those deficiencies. 14 Azinphos Azinphos Methyl Charge to the HSRB Methyl Charge to the HSRB Azinphos methyl ( AZM) is an organophosphate pesticide ( OP). Consistent with other OPs, AZM elicits neurotoxicity through the inhibition of the enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, via phosphorylation of the active site. At sufficiently high doses, exposure to AZM can lead to a variety of clinical signs. The Agency is developing an assessment to estimate risk to workers from exposure to AZM. In addition, AZM is a member of the OP common mechanism group and is thus included in the cumulative risk assessment for the OPs. 15 Azinphos Azinphos Methyl Charge to the HSRB Methyl Charge to the HSRB 1. Scientific considerations:

The Agency's WOE document and DER for AZM describe the study design and results of the AZM repeat dose, oral, human toxicity study. The WOE document also discusses the Agency's conclusions regarding the usefulness of the human study in the worker risk assessment and in the cumulative risk assessment for the OPs.

For AZM, the Agency has concluded that the human toxicity study is appropriate for developing a point of departure for extrapolation of risk to workers exposed to AZM via the dermal and inhalation routes. 16 Azinphos Azinphos Methyl Charge to the HSRB Methyl Charge to the HSRB 1. Scientific considerations, cont'd:

For the cumulative risk assessment, the Agency has determined that because no cholinesterase inhibition was seen in the human toxicity study, it is not possible to evaluate whether steady state had been reached in humans at 28 days of exposure. Thus, the Agency has concluded that the AZM repeat dose, oral, toxicity study is not sufficiently robust for informing the inter species factor in the cumulative risk assessment of the OPs. 17 Azinphos Azinphos Methyl Charge to the HSRB Methyl Charge to the HSRB 1. Scientific considerations, cont'd:

Please comment on the scientific evidence that supports the Agency's conclusions for:

a. the use of the human toxicity study to develop a point of departure for extrapolation of risk to workers in the worker risk assessment, and b. the determination that the human toxicity study cannot be used to inform the inter species factor in the cumulative risk assessment. 18 Azinphos Azinphos Methyl Charge to the HSRB Methyl Charge to the HSRB 2. Ethical considerations:

a. The Agency requests that the Board provide comment on the following:

 Whether the informed consent materials

which refer to " the company" and " supervising doctor", without further identification, and contain no discussion of who would benefit from the research   should be considered significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing when the study was conducted; and, 19 Azinphos Azinphos Methyl Charge to the HSRB Methyl Charge to the HSRB 2. Ethical considerations, cont'd:

a, cont'd. The Agency requests that the Board provide comment on the following:

 Whether the absence from the protocol of any discussion of the potential risks to subjects or benefits to society of conducting the proposed research ( as required by the 1996 Declaration of Helsinki, Principle # 5, with which the research asserted compliance) should be considered significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing when the study was conducted; and 20 Azinphos Azinphos Methyl Charge to the HSRB Methyl Charge to the HSRB 2. Ethical considerations:

b. The Agency asks that the Board provide comment on the following, taking into account all that is known about the ethical conduct of [ this/ each] study: provide comment on the following:

 OPP's conclusion that there is not clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the research was fundamentally unethical. 21 Azinphos Azinphos Methyl Charge to the HSRB Methyl Charge to the HSRB 2. Ethical considerations:

b, cont'd. The Agency asks that the Board provide comment on the following, taking into account all that is known about the ethical conduct of [ this/ each] study: provide comment on the following:

 Whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the study was significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing when the study was conducted.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19041]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07656]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0225]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the
Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is
necessary to allow the community to participate in the Pony Express
Marathon. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-
navigation position during the deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on May 1,
2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0225] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: California Department of Transportation has
requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge,
mile 59.0, over Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The vertical lift
bridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above
Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates
as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is
commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 6:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on May 1, 2016, to allow the community to
participate in the Pony Express Marathon. This temporary deviation has
been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed
temporary deviation were raised.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast
Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any
impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 23, 2016.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-07656 Filed 4-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 15678]
[DOCID:fr02ap07-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-393-004; RP06-298-004, RP94-367-013, and RP95-31-021]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 22, 2007, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in
Appendix A to its filing. The tariff sheets have a proposed effective
date of April 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6002 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1993-1996]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33345]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0549; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-109-AD;
Amendment 39-16573; AD 2011-01-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-
81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD requires installing fuel level float and
pressure switch in-line fuses on the wing forward spars and forward and
aft auxiliary fuel tanks, depending on the airplane configuration. This
AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer.
We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources
inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors,
could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective February 16, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of February 16,
2011.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-
4137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register
on June 18, 2010 (75 FR 34661). That NPRM proposed to require
installing fuel level float and pressure switch in-line fuses on the
wing forward spars and forward and aft auxiliary fuel tanks, depending
on the airplane configuration.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal
and the FAA's response.

Request To Clarify Applicability

    American Airlines (American) requested that we clarify the
applicability of the NPRM. That NPRM identified airplanes in the
effectivity of Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-226, dated April 14,
2010, which specifies that airplanes are not affected unless the
actions specified in McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 28-054 or
28-058 have been done or the float switches have been installed. (These
service bulletins are currently at Revision 1, dated April 15, 1992;
and Revision 2, dated July 6, 1992; respectively.) American reports
that it operates airplanes with switches incorporated in production,
but not installed specifically in accordance with McDonnell Douglas MD-
80 Service Bulletin 28-054 or 28-058. American therefore requests that
we clarify the applicability of the proposed AD to specify whether
airplanes equipped with the subject fuel float/pressure switches--
regardless of the method of installation--are affected.
    We agree to provide clarification. McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service
Bulletins 28-054 and 28-058 specify that the switches are installed in
production on specified and subsequent fuselage numbers. If switches
are installed using McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 28-054 or 28-058
or production equivalent, the actions of this AD are required. We have
added Note 1 in this AD to clarify the applicability.

Change to the Installation Requirements

    The NPRM referred to Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-226, dated
April 14, 2010, as the appropriate source of service information for
the proposed requirements. Boeing has identified errors in certain
references identified in that service bulletin, and issued Service
Bulletin Information Notice MD80-28-226 IN 01, dated April 23, 2010, to
correct these errors. We have included these corrections in new
paragraph (h) in this final rule.

Explanation of Change Made to the [Proposed] AD

    We have revised this AD to identify the legal name of the
manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected airplane models.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 640 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The following table provides the estimated costs, depending on the
airplane configuration, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Average labor rate                                            Number of U.S.-
            Action                  Work hours            per hour              Parts         Cost per product   registered airplanes      Fleet cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation..................  Between 7 and 17.                   $85   Between $817 and   Between $1,412                      640   Between $903,680
                                                                           $1,725.            and $3,170.                               and $2,028,800.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2011-01-16 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16573; Docket No. FAA-
2010-0549; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-109-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective February 16, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81),
DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88
airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin MD80-28-226, dated April 14, 2010.

    Note 1:  The applicability of this AD is limited to airplanes on
which switches are installed in accordance with McDonnell Douglas
MD-80 Service Bulletin 28-054, dated April 8, 1991, or Revision 1,
dated April 15, 1992; or McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin
28-058, dated April 8, 1991, Revision 1, dated August 2, 1991, or
Revision 2, dated July 6, 1992; or production equivalent.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD
to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks,
which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in
fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Fuse Installation

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD,
install fuel level float and pressure switch in-line fuses, and do
applicable wiring changes, in the applicable locations specified in
paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. Do the actions in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin MD80-28-226, dated April 14, 2010, except as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) For Groups 1 through 6: On the left, right, and center wing
forward spars.
    (2) For Groups 7 and 8: On the left, right, and center wing
forward spars, and aft auxiliary fuel tank.
    (3) For Groups 9 through 11: On the left, right, and center wing
forward spars, forward auxiliary fuel tank, and aft auxiliary fuel
tank.

Exception to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (h) Paragraph 3.B.1. of Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-226,
dated April 14, 2010, for Groups 1 through 11, refers to the Boeing
MD80 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) defueling procedure MD80 AMM
12-13-00. The correct reference is Boeing MD80 AMM 12-11-01.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to Attn: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion
Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 562-
627-5210.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Related Information

    (j) For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Lee,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles
ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-226, dated
April 14, 2010, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 27, 2010.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-33345 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 17174]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14870-000]

Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications;
Flat Canyon Hydro, LLC

    On March 7, 2018, the Flat Canyon Hydro, LLC, filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Flat Canyon Pumped
Storage Project (Flat Canyon Project or project) to be located in Flat
Canyon, near the City of Elsinore, Sevier County, Utah. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would be a closed-loop pumped storage
hydropower facility that consists of the following: (1) A 37-acre upper
reservoir having a total storage capacity of 1,800 acre-feet at a
normal maximum operating elevation of 6,930 feet mean sea level (msl);
(2) a 55-foot-high, 550-foot-long zoned earth/rockfill or concrete-
faced upper reservoir dam; (3) a 55-foot-high, 525-foot-long zoned
earth/rockfill or concrete-faced second upper reservoir dam; (4) a
1,350-foot-long, 15-foot-diameter low-pressure headrace tunnel either
unlined or lined concrete-lined; (5) a 6,850-foot-long, 15-foot-
diameter high-pressure headrace tunnel lined with either concrete or
steel; (6) a 220-foot-long, 60-foot-wide, 120-foot-high powerhouse
housed in an underground cavern and accessed via a 2,600-foot-long, 18-
foot-diameter access tunnel, housing two variable-speed reversible
pump/turbine-motor/generator units rated for 150 megawatts each at
1,370 feet maximum gross head; (7) a 2,400-foot-long, 17.5-foot-
diameter tailrace tunnel lined with concrete; (8) a 37-acre lower
reservoir having a total storage capacity 1,800 acre-feet at a normal
maximum operating elevation of 5,630 feet msl; (9) a 75-foot-high, 850-
foot-long zoned earth/rockfill or concrete-faced lower reservoir dam;
(10) a 13-mile-long, 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending from
the powerhouse that would follow an existing transmission corridor to
the Sigurd Substation owned by Rocky Mountain Power, or, if possible, a
direct connection to Rocky Mountain Power's Sigurd-Red Butte No. 2 345-
kV line adjacent to the project (the point of interconnection); and
(11) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the
Flat Canyon Project would be 525.6 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Matthew Shapiro, CEO, Gridflex Energy, LLC, 1210
W Franklin St, Ste. 2, Boise, Idaho 83702; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kyle Olcott; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. 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. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14870-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14870) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 12, 2018. .
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08078 Filed 4-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10610-10612]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0378]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from twelve
individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would
enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal
vision requirement.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0378 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday

through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 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.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The twelve individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Robert J. Abbas

    Mr. Abbas, age 62, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``In my medical opinion, this patient has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Abbas reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for
31 years, accumulating 2.3 million miles. He holds a Class A Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) from Minnesota. His driving record for the last
3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for speeding in a
Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV); he exceeded the speed limit by 13 mph.

Paul T. Browning

    Mr. Browning, 50, has a severed optic nerve in his right eye due to
a traumatic injury sustained in 1995. The best corrected visual acuity
in right eye is light perception and in his left eye, 20/20. Following
an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``It is my opinion after
examining Mr. Browning that visually he is able to operate a commercial
motor vehicle in a safe and prudent manner.'' Mr. Browning reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating 273,000
miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Montana. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Robert P. Clark

    Mr. Clark, 66, has a detached retina in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained in 1967. The best corrected visual acuity in
right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, hand motion vision. Following
an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``It is my opinion that
Mr. Clark has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Clark reported that he has driven straight trucks for 45 years,
accumulating 1.1 million miles. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one
conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; driving a CMV while
disqualified.

Carey C. Earwood

    Mr. Earwood, 67, has a corneal scar in his left eye due to an
injury sustained 55 years ago. The best corrected visual acuity in
right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination
in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``Based on the results of the
examination, Mr. Carey Earwood was found to have sufficient vision to
safely operate a motor vehicle.'' Mr. Earwood reported that he has
driven tractor-trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 4.4
million miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Alabama. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Cheryl G. Johnson

    Mrs. Johnson, 66, has had complete loss of vision in her left eye
since birth. The best corrected visual acuity in right eye 20/20.
Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my
opinion Mrs. Johnson has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mrs. Johnson reported that
she has driven buses trucks for 24 years, accumulating 288,000 miles.
She holds a chauffeur's license from Indiana. Her driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Kevan J. Larson

    Mr. Larson, 28, has had macular scarring in his left eye since
birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and
in his left eye, count-finger vision. Following an examination in 2011,
his optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion, and based upon results
of Kevan's vision examination, I believe he has sufficient vision
capabilities to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Larson reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 10 years, accumulating 280,000 miles. He holds a Class D
operator's license from Idaho. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Melvin D. Rolfe

    Mr. Rolfe, 57, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his
left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``I feel he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
of a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Rolfe reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 80,000 miles. He holds a
Class D

operator's license from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Gilbert M. Rosas

    Mr. Rosas, 44, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his
left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``I certify that patient Gilbert Rosas has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Rosas reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14 years,
accumulating 1.1 million miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 3
years, accumulating 150,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Arizona.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Kim A. Shaffer

    Mr. Shaffer, 61, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
injury sustained as a child. The best corrected visual acuity in his
left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``This patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Shaffer reported
that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 40 years,
accumulating 1.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Larry W. Slinker

    Mr. Slinker, 59, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200
and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``In my opinion, he should be able to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Slinker reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 2
years, accumulating 280,000 miles and buses for 2 years, accumulating
41,600 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Lonnie J. Supanchick

    Mr. Supanchick, 59, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25,
and in his left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Lonnie Supanchick has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Supanchick reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 137,500 miles and tractor-
trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 175,000 miles. He holds
a Class B CDL from Nevada. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gerald W. Warner

    Mr. Warner, 20, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70 and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``In my professional opinion, Mr. Warner has sufficient vision
to operate a commercial vehicle and to perform the driving tasks
required.'' Mr. Warner reported that he has driven straight trucks for
32 years, accumulating 480,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations
for 32 years, accumulating 1.6 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL
from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business March 23, 2012. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: February 10, 2012.
 Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-3991 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P