[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 130 (Monday, July 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36543-36544]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2349-000]

AR Searcy Project Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
AR Searcy Project Company, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 26, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 6, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14759 Filed 7-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 165 (Wednesday, August 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51723-51725]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21118]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 26, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3463; Special Conditions No. 25-590-SC]

Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 Airplane;
Installed Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc.
Model BD-100-1A10 airplane. This airplane, as modified by S4A,
Solutions for Aviation, S.L., will have a novel or unusual design
feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design
feature is the installation of an Aspire 200 satellite communications
(satcom) system with wireless handsets that use rechargeable lithium
batteries and battery systems. Rechargeable lithium batteries and
battery systems have certain failure, operational, and maintenance
characteristics that differ significantly from those of the nickel-
cadmium and lead-acid rechargeable batteries currently approved for
installation on transport category airplanes. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for these design features. These special conditions contain
the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers
necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established
by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Bombardier Inc. on August 26, 2015.
We must receive your comments by September 25, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-3463
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nazih Khaouly, FAA, Airplane and
Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington, 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
airplanes. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has
been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances
with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that
good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On June 18, 2014, S4A, Solutions for Aviation, S.L. applied for a
supplemental type certificate to install an Aspire 200 satcom system
with wireless handsets in the Bombardier Model BD-100-1A10 airplane
(known as the ``Challenger 300''). The BD-100-1A10 airplane is a
corporate jet with an eight-passenger and two-crew capacity. It is
equipped with two, rear-mounted Honeywell HTF7000 turbofan engines and
has a maximum takeoff weight of 38,850 lb/17,622 kg.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, S4A, Solutions for Aviation, S.L. must show that the BD-
100-1A10 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the regulations listed
in T00005NY or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change except for earlier amendments as agreed upon
by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the BD-100-1A10 airplane because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.

    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
these special conditions would also apply to the other model under
Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the BD-100-1A10 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and
exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The BD-100-1A10 airplane will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design feature: The installation of an Aspire 200 satcom system
with wireless handsets that will use rechargeable lithium batteries and
battery systems. Rechargeable lithium batteries and battery systems
that have certain failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics
that differ significantly from those of the nickel-cadmium and lead-
acid rechargeable batteries currently approved for installation on
large, transport category airplanes.
    The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Discussion

    The current regulations governing installation of batteries in
large, transport category airplanes were derived from Civil Air
Regulations (CAR) part 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR
4b that established part 25 in February 1965. The recodified battery
requirements, Sec.  25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4), basically reworded
the CAR requirements.
    Increased use of nickel-cadmium batteries in small airplanes
resulted in increased incidents of battery fires and failures that led
to additional rulemaking affecting large, transport category airplanes
as well as small airplanes. On September 1, 1977, and March 1, 1978,
with Amendments 25-41 and 25-42 respectively, the FAA added paragraphs
(c)(5) and (c)(6) to Sec.  25.1353 governing nickel-cadmium battery
installations on large, transport category airplanes. On December 10,
2007, Amendment 25-123 moved the contents of paragraph (b) in Sec.
25.1353 to the new subpart H, resulting in the relocation of the
regulations governing the installation of batteries in Sec.  25.1353
from paragraph (c) to paragraph (b).
    The use of rechargeable lithium batteries for equipment and systems
prompted the FAA to review the adequacy of these existing regulations.
Our review indicated that the existing regulations do not adequately
address several failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics
of rechargeable lithium batteries that could affect the safety and
reliability of the Bombardier BD-100-1A10 lithium battery
installations.
    At present, there is limited experience with the use of lithium
batteries in applications involving commercial aviation. However, other
users of this technology, ranging from wireless telephone manufacturers
to the electric vehicle industry, have noted safety problems with
lithium batteries. These problems include overcharging, over-
discharging, and flammability of cell components.

1. Overcharging

    In general, lithium batteries are significantly more susceptible to
internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in
temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-
cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. This condition is especially true
for overcharging, which causes heating and destabilization of the
components of the cell, leading to the formation (by plating) of highly
unstable metallic lithium. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting
in a self-sustaining fire or explosion. Finally, the severity of
thermal runaway due to overcharging increases with increasing battery
capacity due to the higher amount of electrolyte in large batteries.

2. Over-Discharging

    Discharge of some types of lithium battery cells beyond a certain
voltage (typically 2.4 volts), can cause corrosion of the electrodes of
the cell, resulting in loss of battery capacity that cannot be reversed
by recharging. This loss of capacity may not be detected by the simple
voltage measurements commonly available to flightcrews as a means of
checking battery status--a problem shared with nickel-cadmium
batteries.

3. Flammability of Cell Components

    Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, some types of
lithium batteries use liquid electrolytes that are flammable. The
electrolyte can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire, if
there is a breach of the battery container.
    These problems experienced by users of lithium batteries raise
concern about the use of these batteries in commercial aviation. The
intent of these special conditions is to establish appropriate
airworthiness standards for lithium battery installations in the BD-
100-1A10 airplane and to ensure, as required by Sec. Sec.  25.601, that
these battery installations are not hazardous or unreliable.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model No. BD-100-1A10 airplane. Should S4A, Solutions for Aviation,
S.L. apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to
modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. T00005NY to
incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one airplane model. It is not a rule of general applicability and
affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these
features on the airplane.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined
that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable,
and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon
publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to
allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been
submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described
above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Bombardier BD-100-1A10 airplane
modified by S4A, Solutions for Aviation, S.L.
    In lieu of the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) 25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4) at Amendment 25-101
for rechargeable lithium batteries and battery systems, all
installations must be designed and installed as follows:
    1. Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during
any foreseeable charging or discharging condition and during any
failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be
extremely remote. The rechargeable lithium battery installation must
preclude explosion in the event of those failures.
    2. Design of the rechargeable lithium batteries must preclude the
occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or
pressure.
    3. No explosive or toxic gases emitted by any rechargeable lithium
battery in normal operation, or as the result of any failure of the
battery charging system, monitoring system, or battery installation
which is not shown to be extremely remote, may accumulate in hazardous
quantities within the airplane.
    4. Installations of rechargeable lithium batteries must meet the
requirements of Sec.  25.863(a) through (d).
    5. No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any
rechargeable lithium battery may damage surrounding structure or any
adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring of the airplane in
such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition, in
accordance with Sec.  25.1309(b) and applicable regulatory guidance.
    6. Each rechargeable lithium battery installation must have
provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential
systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate
during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual cells.
    7. Lithium battery installations must have a system to control the
charging rate of the battery automatically, so as to prevent battery
overheating or overcharging, and,
    a. A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning
system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from
its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition, or,
    b. A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for
automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the
event of battery failure.
    8. Any rechargeable lithium battery installation, the function of
which is required for safe operation of the airplane, must incorporate
a monitoring and warning feature that will provide an indication to the
appropriate flight crewmembers whenever the state-of-charge of the
batteries has fallen below levels considered acceptable for dispatch of
the airplane.
    9. The instructions for continued airworthiness required by Sec.
25.1529 must contain maintenance requirements to assure that the
battery is sufficiently charged at appropriate intervals specified by
the battery manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer that contain
the rechargeable lithium battery or rechargeable lithium battery
system. This is required to ensure that lithium rechargeable batteries
and lithium rechargeable battery systems will not degrade below
specified ampere-hour levels sufficient to power the aircraft system,
for intended applications. The instructions for continued airworthiness
must also contain procedures for the maintenance of batteries in spares
storage to prevent the replacement of batteries with batteries that
have experienced degraded charge retention ability or other damage due
to prolonged storage at a low state of charge. Replacement batteries
must be of the same manufacturer and part number as approved by the
FAA. Precautions should be included in the instructions for continued
airworthiness maintenance instructions to prevent mishandling of the
rechargeable lithium battery and rechargeable lithium battery systems
which could result in short-circuit or other unintentional impact
damage caused by dropping or other destructive means that could result
in personal injury or property damage.

    Note 1:  The term ``sufficiently charged'' means that the
battery will retain enough of a charge, expressed in ampere-hours,
to ensure that the battery cells will not be damaged. A battery cell
may be damaged by lowering the charge below a point where there is a
reduction in the ability to charge and retain a full charge. This
reduction would be greater than the reduction that may result from
normal operational degradation.

    Note 2:  These special conditions are not intended to replace
Sec.  25.1353(c) at Amendment 25-101 in the certification basis of
the BD-100-1A10 airplane. These special conditions apply only to
rechargeable lithium batteries and lithium battery systems and their
installations. The requirements of Sec.  25.1353(c) at Amendment 25-
101 remain in effect for batteries and battery installations on the
BD-100-1A10 airplane that do not use lithium batteries.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 7, 2015.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-21118 Filed 8-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Response to Comments to the Proposed Regulation: Land Disposal Restrictions: Notice of Intent to Grant Two Site Specific Treatment Variances U. S. Ecology Idaho, Incorporated in Grandview, Idaho and CWM Chemical Services, LLC in Model City, New York U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5302 W) 1200 PA Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 May 2002 There were three comments received on the July 24, 2001 proposed regulation. They are:

1. Brian Correa  Safety Kleen, Docket Number TVLN 00001 2. Safety Kleen, Chemical Services Division, Docket Number TVLN 00002 3. Alcoa, Docket Number TVLN 00003 Comment #1: It is fine for the 26.1 ppm total arsenic standard to apply to newly generated K088. All other mixture, derived from and contained in K088 should use the 5.0 ppm arsenic TCLP Universal Treatment Standard. Instead of repeating the variance process, EPA should consider permanently fixing it by bifurcating the treatment standard between newly generated K088 and derived from KO88. The cost and delay to industry and taxpayers seems unnecessary.

Response: EPA does not believe it is an appropriate course of action to bifurcate the treatment standard for arsenic. The existing regulations are sufficient. In cases where site specific variances from the 26.1 ppm total arsenic standard are appropriate, EPA's regulations set forth the infrastructure for generators or treaters of hazardous waste to file petitions for variances from treatment. To date, EPA has responded to only four petitions regarding the treatment standard for arsenic in K088 derived from waste in the past two years. (66 FR 33887, June 26, 2001 and 65 FR 45978, July 26, 2000, plus the two granted today.) There are no outstanding treatment variance petitions.

Comment #2: Based on its own experiences in meeting the relevant Land Disposal Restrictions, Safety Kleen, Chemical Services Division supports EPA's decision to grant site specific treatment variances from the 26.1 ppm total arsenic standard.

Response: No response needed.

Comment #3: Alcoa supports EPA's proposal to grant alternate treatment standards for the relevant wastes, with clarifications and changes as seen in the detailed comments below.

A 1: "Clarify that the alternate treatment standard for arsenic in the K088 derived baghouse dust and incinerator residue "generated" at CWM's facility is not limited to the waste currently managed on site."

Response: The treatment standard granted under this variance applies to existing and future baghouse dust generated at CWM's Model City facility. The treatment standard also applies to existing and future incinerator ash treated at CWM's Model City facility. (The comment did not address filtercake. The variance also applies to any K088 derived from filtercake generated in the future at the Model City facility.)

A 2: Clarify what incinerator residue at CWM's Model City facility are covered by the rule.

Response: The variance granted to CWM's Model City facility under this rulemaking is limited to incinerator residue wastes generated at the Model City facility, i. e., from treatment processes occurring at this facility.

A 3: If EPA would allow CWM to dispose of K088 derived incinerator residue received from off site without further treatment provided the incincerator residue meets the LDR treatment standards, why is EPA limiting the disposal of these residues to CWM's Model City Subtitle C landfill? The result seems unnecessary, since other Subtitle C landfills would be protective. Response: As stated above, the variance granted to CWM's Model City facility under this rulemaking is limited to wastes generated or treated at the Model City facility. Waste from offsite that meets the 26.1 ppm total arsenic standard (i. e., the non variance standard), could be disposed in the CWM landfill. Facilities other than CWM's Model City facility who believe their wastes meet the criteria for a variance from the K088 standard can submit their own variance petition to EPA for consideration.

A 4: Amend the LDR treatment standard for arsenic in K088 wastes as opposed to requiring facilities to submit site specific treatability variances.

Response: As mentioned in our response to comment #1, EPA does not believe it is an appropriate course of action at this time to bifurcate the treatment standard for arsenic. The existing regulations are sufficient. EPA's regulations set forth the infrastructure for generators or treaters of hazardous waste to file petitions for variances from the treatment standard. To date, EPA has responded to only four petitions regarding the treatment standard for arsenic in K088 derived from waste in the past two years. (66 FR 33887, June 26, 2001 and 65 FR 45978, July 26, 2000, plus the two granted today.)


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41544-41546]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17694]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64848; File No. SR-EDGX-2011-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

 July 8, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 30, 2011, the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or the
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer, or any person
associated with a registered broker or dealer, that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Purpose
    Currently, Members can qualify for the Mega Tier Rebate and be
provided a rebate of $0.0034 per share for all liquidity posted on EDGX
if they add or route at least 4,000,000 shares of average daily volume
prior to 9:30 a.m. or after 4 p.m. (including all flags except 6) And
add a minimum of 38,000,000 shares of average daily volume on EDGX in
total, including during both market hours and pre- and post-trading
hours. The Exchange proposes to amend the second prong of this criteria
for achieving a $0.0034 per share rebate to indicate that Members will
qualify for such rebate if they add a minimum of 20,000,000 shares
(instead of 38,000,000 shares) of average daily volume on EDGX in total
including during both market hours and pre- and post-trading hours.
    Members can also currently qualify for the Mega Tier and be
provided a rebate of $0.0032 per share for liquidity added on EDGX in
either of two ways: (i) If the Member, on a daily basis, measured
monthly, posts 0.75% of the Total Consolidated Volume (``TCV'') \4\ in
average daily volume; or (ii) if the Member, on a daily basis, measured
monthly, posts 10,000,000 shares more than their February 2011 average
daily volume added to EDGX. The Exchange proposes to amend the Mega
Tier criteria in (ii), above, for achieving a $0.0032 rebate to
indicate that Members will qualify for such rebate if, on a daily
basis, measured monthly, they post 0.12% of the TCV in average daily
volume more than their February 2011 average daily volume added to
EDGX. This latter criteria in (ii) is designed to reward a Member's
growth pattern in providing liquidity beyond a designated baseline
(Feb. 2011 average daily volume added to EDGX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ TCV is defined as volume reported by all exchanges and trade
reporting facilities to the consolidated transaction reporting plans
for Tapes A, B and C securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to provide an additional rebate of
$0.0029 per share for Members who post 0.065% of TCV in average daily
volume more than their February 2011 average daily volume added to
EDGX, unless they otherwise qualify for a higher rebate. This criteria
is also designed to reward a Member's growth pattern in providing
liquidity beyond a designated baseline (Feb. 2011 average daily volume
added to EDGX).
    EDGX Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to the
Exchange fee schedule on July 1, 2011.
Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Exchange Act,\5\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\6\ in particular, as it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that proposing an additional rebate of
$0.0029 per share represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges since higher rebates are correlated with
Member's liquidity provision and/or meeting growth criteria beyond a
designated baseline, as described above. The new rebate offers a new,
flexible way for Members to achieve a higher rebate than the standard
rebate of $0.0023 per share. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rebate is non-discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to all
Members.
    The Mega Tier rebate of $0.0034/$0.0032 per share has both strict
liquidity provision and/or growth criteria associated with it, and is
$0.0003/$0.0001 greater than the Ultra Tier rebate ($0.0031 per share)
and $0.0004/$0.0002 greater than the Super Tier rebate ($0.0030 per
share) and is $0.0005/$0.0003 per share greater than the new rebate
proposed of $0.0029 per share.
    For example, and as proposed in this filing, based on average TCV
for May 2011 (7.0 billion), in order for a Member to qualify for the
Mega Tier rebate of $0.0034, the Member would have to add or route at
least 4,000,000 shares of average daily volume during pre- and post-
trading hours and add a minimum of 20,000,000 shares of average daily
volume on EDGX in total, including during both market hours and pre-
and post-trading hours. The criteria for this qualification is the most
stringent of the liquidity provision criteria amongst the tiers as
fewer Members generally trade during pre- and post-trading hours
because of the limited time parameters associated with these trading
sessions. The Exchange believes that this higher rebate awarded to
Members would incent liquidity during these trading sessions. Such
increased volume increases potential revenue to the Exchange, and would
allow the

Exchange to spread its administrative and infrastructure costs over a
greater number of shares, leading to lower per share costs. These lower
per share costs would allow the Exchange to pass on the savings to
Members in the form of a higher rebate. The increased liquidity also
benefits all investors by deepening EDGX's liquidity pool, offering
additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings,
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection. Volume-based rebates
such as the ones proposed herein have been widely adopted in the cash
equities markets, and are equitable because they are open to all
members on an equal basis and provide discounts that are reasonably
related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with
higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity
provision and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price
and volume discovery processes.
    Another way a Member can qualify for the Mega Tier (with a rebate
of $0.0032 per share) would be to post 0.75% of TCV. Based on average
TCV for May 2011 (7.0 billion), this would be 52.5 million shares on
EDGX. A second method, as proposed in this filing, to qualify for the
rebate of $0.0032 per share would be to post 0.12% of the TCV in
average daily volume more than the Member's February 2011 average daily
volume added to EDGX. As mentioned above, this criteria is designed to
reward growth by a Member beyond a designated baseline (Feb. 2011
average daily volume added to EDGX). Assuming the Member's February
2011 average daily volume added to EDGX was 0 shares, this would amount
to an additional 8.4 million shares. The Exchange believes that
requiring Members to post 0.12% of the TCV in average daily volume more
than a February 2011 average daily baseline volume offers an
additional, flexible way to achieve the Mega Tier rebate and encourages
Members to add increasing amounts of liquidity to EDGX each month, and
thereby rewards a Member's growth patterns. Such increased volume
increases potential revenue to the Exchange, and would allow the
Exchange to spread its administrative and infrastructure costs over a
greater number of shares, leading to lower per share costs. These lower
per share costs would allow the Exchange to pass on the savings to
Members in the form of a higher rebate. The increased liquidity also
benefits all investors by deepening EDGX's liquidity pool, offering
additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings,
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection. Volume-based rebates
such as the ones proposed herein have been widely adopted in the cash
equities markets, and are equitable because they are open to all
members on an equal basis and provide discounts that are reasonably
related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with
higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity
provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of
orders into the price and volume discovery processes.
    In order to qualify for the Ultra Tier, which has less stringent
criteria than the analogous liquidity provision criteria of the Mega
Tier, the Member would have to post 0.50% of TCV. Based on average TCV
for May 2011 (7.0 billion shares), this would be 35 million shares on
EDGX.
    Finally, the Super Tier has the least stringent criteria of the
analogous tiers that only reward liquidity provision. In order for a
Member to qualify for this rebate, the Member would have to post at
least 10 million shares of average daily volume to EDGX. As stated
above, these rebates also result, in part, from lower administrative
and other costs associated with higher volume.
    Finally, the Exchange also believes that adding criteria that
allows Members to qualify for a $0.0029 per share rebate if they add an
average of 0.065% of the TCV in average daily volume more than their
February 2011 average daily volume added to EDGX, provided they don't
qualify for a higher rebate, allows Members even greater flexibility
with respect to achieving an additional rebate and rewards growth
patterns in volume by Members as this rebate's conditions encourage
Members to add increasing amounts of liquidity to EDGX each month.
Based on an average daily volume in February 2011 of 0 shares, the
Member would have to add 4.5 million shares to qualify for such rebate.
This rebate also result, in part, from lower administrative and other
costs associated with higher volume.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
The proposed rule changes reflect a competitive pricing structure
designed to incent market participants to direct their order flow to
the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are non-
discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all Members. The
Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive with those
charged by other venues and therefore continue to be reasonable and
equitably allocated to Members.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \8\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2011-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2011-19. This file

number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2011-19 and should be
submitted on or before August 4, 2011.

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

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17694 Filed 7-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 30916]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12292]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR13-21-000]

CenterPoint Energy Bakken Crude Services, LLC; Notice of Petition
for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on May 14, 2013, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the
Commission's Rules of Practices and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.207(a)(2)(2012), CenterPoint Energy Bakken Crude Services, LLC
filed a petition seeking a declaratory order approving the overall
tariff and rate structure for a new crude oil gathering pipeline system
that will gather crude oil produced from various points in Dunn and
McKenzie Counties, North Dakota and transport it to an interconnection
with Great Northern Gathering and Marketing, L.L.C.'s Watford Terminal,
which is located in McKenzie County, North Dakota.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 10, 2013.

    Dated: May 16, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12292 Filed 5-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


\7\ See GlobalCapital.com, Global League Tables, available at
https://www.globalcapital.com/data/all-league-tables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, U.S. banks also have performed well during the Covid-19
pandemic. But our financial system continues to face many
extraordinary risks from the effects of the pandemic. In the middle
of this latest shock to our financial system, we should not be
rushing out a final rule that permits greater risk taking by banks.
Rather, we should take stock of the data available to us, and make
carefully reasoned, incremental changes that are consistent with the
Congressional intent for the Volcker rule.

[FR Doc. 2020-15525 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 31420]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12899]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

 In the Matter of Savoy Resources Corp., SNRG Corp., Standard
Mobile, Inc., and VTEX Energy, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

May 23, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Savoy Resources Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended March 31, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
SNRG Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended June 30, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Standard Mobile, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended March 31, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
VTEX Energy, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended July 31, 2006.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on May 23, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 6, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12899 Filed 5-23-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32276-32277]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the Record Communications; Public Notice

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Docket No.              Filed date     Presenter or requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP13-73-000, CP13-74-000          5-7-14  Rancho Sierra Vista de
                                                  Sasabe.
    2. P-12790-002.............          5-8-14  Anne P. Delo and
                                                  Rosemary E. Giuliano.
    3. P-12790-000, P-12790-002         5-13-14  FERC Staff.\1\
    4. P-12790-000.............         5-13-14  FERC Saff.\2\
Exempt:
    1. ER14-1050-000...........          5-5-14  Members of Congress.\3\
    2. CP12-507-000............          5-7-14  State Representative
                                                  Jim Keffer.
    3. ER13-1380-000...........          5-7-14  Members of New York
                                                  State Senate.\4\
    4. ER13-1380-000...........          5-7-14  Town of North East, New
                                                  York.
    5. CP13-113-000............          5-7-14  Office of the Sheriff,
                                                  Calvert County,
                                                  Maryland.

    6. P-2305-036..............          5-8-14  US Environmental
                                                  Protection Agency.
    7. CP14-96-000.............          5-8-14  State of Maine Governor
                                                  Pal R. LaPage.
    8. CP14-96-000.............          5-9-14  Members of Congress.\5\
    9. CP14-96-000.............          5-9-14  Members of State of
                                                  Maine Sentate.\6\
    10. ER13-1380-000, ER14-500-        5-12-14  Dutchess County
     000.                                         Executive Marc
                                                  Molinaro.\7\
    11. CP14-125-000, CP14-126-         5-14-14  Hon. Bill Cassidy.\8\
     000.
    12. P-14537-001............         5-14-14  FERC Staff.\9\
    13. ER13-1380-000..........         5-14-14  Intercounty Legislative
                                                  Committee of the
                                                  Adirondacks.
    14. ER13-1380-000..........         5-15-14  Hon. Sean Patrick
                                                  Maloney.
    15. ER13-1380-000..........         5-15-14  New York Assemblyman
                                                  Kevin Kevin A. Cahill.
    16. ER13-1380-000..........         5-15-14  Orange County, New
                                                  York.
    17. ER13-1380-000..........         5-15-14  Dutchess County
                                                  Legislature Robert G.
                                                  Rolison.
    18. ER13-1380-000, ER14-500-        5-15-14  Hon. Charles
     00.                                          Schumer.\10\
    19. CP13-483-000, CP13-492-         5-15-14  FERC Staff.\11\
     000.
    20. CP13-492-000...........         5-15-14  FERC Staff.\12\
    21. P-2210-207.............         5-20-14  Hon. James P. Moran.
    22. CP14-96-000............         5-20-14  State of Maine
                                                  Representative Mark W.
                                                  Eves.
    23. ER13-1380-000, ER14-500-        5-20-14  Dutchess County
     000.                                         Legislature.\13\
    24. ER13-1380-000, ER14-500-        5-20-14  Orange County, New York
     000.                                         Legislative Jeffrey
                                                  Berkman.
    25. CP12-509-000...........         5-22-14  FERC Staff.\14\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ eMails dated May 6, and May 7, 2014 from Lee Sherwood.
\2\ eMail dated May 6, 2014 from Carol Haskins.
\3\ Hons. Jeanne Shaheen, Patrick Leahy, Edward J. Markey, Kelly Ayotte,
  Richard Blumenthal, Christopher Murphy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Elizabeth
  Warren, Jack Reed.
\4\ Andrea Stewart-Cousins, George Latimer, Ruth Hassell-Thompson,
  Cecilia Tkaczyk, Terry Gipson, Neil Breslin.
\5\ Joe Courtney, Michael H. Michaud, John B. Larson, Jim Himes, Jim
  Langevin, Rosa DeLauro, David Cicilline, Elizabeth Esty.
\6\ Individual letters from Justin L. Alfond and Roger Katz.
\7\ Summary of May 12, 2014 telephone call with Acting Chairman LaFleur.
\8\ Summary of May 8, 2014 telephone call with Acting Chairman LaFleur.
\9\ Telephone memo for May 13, 2014 telephone call with Pennsylvania
  Coastal Resource Management Program.
\10\ Summary of May 15, 2014 conversation with Acting Chairman LaFleur.
\11\ Notes from May 14, 2014 bi-weekly telephone conference with federal
  cooperating agencies.
\12\ Memo forwarding letter to Norman Bay, dated April 30, 2014 from
  Marcella and Alan Laudani.
\13\ Letter signed by Representatives of Legislative Districts 1 through
  25.
\14\ Summary of May 20, 2014 conversation with Lisa Tonery, counsel for
  Freeport LNG.

    Dated: May 27, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12883 Filed 6-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 27 (Thursday, February 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 9116]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02961]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 86 FR 8061,
February 3, 2021.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Tuesday, February 9,
2021 at 5:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
February 9, 2021 at 5:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: February 9, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02961 Filed 2-9-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30062-30064]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12176]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 383, 384, and 391

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0178]
RIN 2126-AB40

Medical Examiner's Certification Integration; Availability of
Updated Privacy Impact Assessment

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

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces the availability of the Privacy Impact
Assessment (PIA) for the Medical Examiner's Certification Integration
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 10, 2013. Due to
technical errors, the PIA was not posted to the docket until July 4,
2013, just a few days prior to the end of the public comment period. In
addition, the PIA was not posted to the Department of Transportation's
(DOT's) Privacy Web site until December 11, 2013. In an effort to
provide the public with as much information as possible regarding the
National Registry and the Medical Examiner's Certification Integration
rulemaking, we are announcing the availability of the updated PIA and
requesting comments from the public. Comments must be limited to
possible impact of the rules proposed in the NPRM on the protection of
privacy of information used in determining the physical qualifications
of drivers of commercial motor vehicles.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2012-0178 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. Comments received after the comment closing date
will be included in the docket, and we will consider late comments to
the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Hamilton, Office of Medical
Programs, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to submit comments regarding the impacts on
privacy of information by the rules proposed in the Medical Examiner's
Certification Integration rulemaking. All comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you provide.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (FMCSA-2012-0178), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and

material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding
your submission. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and click on the ``Submit a Comment'' box, which
will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop-
down menu, select ``Proposed Rules,'' insert ``FMCSA 2012-0178'' in the
``Keyword'' box, and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears,
click on ``Submit a Comment'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit
your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit your comments by mail and would like
to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the proposed
rule based on your comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in the Medical
Examiner's Certification Integration NPRM, available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov and click on the ``Read Comments'' box in
the upper right-hand side of the screen. Then in the ``Keyword'' box,
insert ``FMCSA-2012-0178'' and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open
Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. Finally, in the ``Title''
column, click on the document you would like to review. If you do not
have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. 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 Federal Docket Management System published in the
Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-01-17/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

II. Background

Legal Basis
    The Agency, in conjunction with the Department's Chief Information
Office, has prepared and made available a PIA.\1\ This PIA has been
prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 522(a)(5) of the
FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268
(Dec. 8, 2004).\2\ This statute requires DOT agencies to prepare a PIA
on proposed rules involving the privacy of information in identifiable
form, including the type of personally identifiable information
collected and the number of people affected.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FMCSA-2012-0178-0039.
    \2\ Set out as a note to 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Privacy Act, 5
U.S.C. 552a.
    \3\ Section 522(f) of the statute defines ``identifiable form''
as to be consistent with section 208 of the E-Government Act of 2002
(set out as a note under 44 U.S.C. Sec.  3501, the Paperwork
Reduction Act) and as any representation of information that permits
identification of an individual to be reasonably inferred by either
direct or indirect means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statute involved does not require this Agency or the Department
to provide an opportunity to comment on the PIA directly. The PIA
provides a detailed explanation of the privacy interests involved in
the entire National Registry program. It sets out the careful and
thorough steps FMCSA and the Department have taken and will take to
protect those interests, while at the same time carrying out the
statutory directives to ensure that CMV drivers are physically
qualified and can operate safely and that operation of a CMV does not
affect their health.\4\ Nonetheless, the PIA does provide a basis for
public comment on any rules proposed by the Agency that may have an
impact on privacy of information within its scope. The context for such
impact is provided by a brief review of the history of the development
of the National Registry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3) and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory History
    The National Registry was developed and implemented under the
authority of 49 U.S.C. 31149, enacted by Section 4116(a) of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed and maintained by the
FMCSA. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) require
that CMV drivers comply with physical qualification requirements and be
examined and certified by a medical examiner (ME) at least once every
two years. The National Registry ensures that MEs who perform DOT
driver medical examinations are properly trained and certified by FMCSA
to do so. The program maintains personally identifiable information
(PII) for each ME candidate applying for ME certification, MEs'
administrative personnel who are registering on the National Registry,
and of CMV drivers examined by a certified ME. FMCSA published a final
rule on April 20, 2012 (77 FR 73129), to establish and maintain a
National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners. FMCSA posted a PIA of
the final rule on the DOT privacy program Web site on August 20, 2012.
    FMCSA published the Medical Examiner's Certification Integration
NPRM on May 10, 2013 (78 FR 24104), a follow-on rule to the National
Registry final rule. The purpose of the principal requirements proposed
in the Medical Examiner's Certification Integration NPRM was to modify
the requirements adopted in two earlier final rules issued by FMCSA,
Medical Certification Requirements as Part of the Commercial Driver's
License, 73 FR 73096 (Dec. 1, 2008), and the National Registry final
rule. It proposed that the information from the Medical Examiner's
Certificate (MEC) be transmitted to FMCSA on a daily basis by MEs.
FMCSA would then promptly and accurately transmit that information for
CDL holders to the State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs)
electronically for entry into the appropriate CDL driver record within
one business day of receipt from FMCSA. Specifically, the NPRM proposed
to require MEs to use a slightly revised Medical Examination Report
(MER) Form, MCSA-5875 and the MEC, Form MCSA-5876; daily instead of
monthly reporting of CMV driver medical examinations; electronic
transmission of CDL and Commercial Learner's Permit (CLP) driver
information from the National Registry system to the SDLAs; and
electronic transmission of medical variance information for all CMV
drivers to the SDLAs.
    The PIA announced by this notice is an update to the previous
National Registry PIA (August 20, 2012) and in support of the Medical
Examiner's Certification Integration NPRM. It not only updates the
additional collection of personally identifiable information (PII)
under this rule but attempts to update language in the PIA for clarity
to the reader.

III. Summary of Privacy Impact Assessment

    The Privacy Act of 1974 articulates concepts for how the Federal
government should treat individuals and their information and imposes
duties upon federal agencies regarding the collection, use,
dissemination, and maintenance of PII. The E-Government Act of 2002,
Section 208, establishes the requirement for agencies to conduct PIAs
for electronic information systems and collections. The assessment is a
practical method for evaluating privacy in information systems and
collections, and provides documented assurance that privacy issues have
been identified and adequately addressed. The PIA is an analysis of how
information is handled to: (i) Ensure handling conforms to applicable
legal, regulatory, and policy requirements regarding privacy; (ii)
determine the risks and effects of collecting, maintaining and
disseminating information in identifiable form in an electronic
information system; and (iii) examine and evaluate protections and
alternative processes for handling information to mitigate potential
privacy risks.
    Conducting a PIA ensures compliance with laws and regulations
governing privacy and demonstrates DOT's commitment to protect the
privacy of any personal information we collect, store, retrieve, use
and share. It is a comprehensive analysis of how DOT's electronic
information systems and collections handle PII. The goals accomplished
in completing a PIA include:
    Making informed policy and system design or procurement decisions.
These decisions must be based on an understanding of privacy risk, and
of options available for mitigating that risk;
     Accountability for privacy issues;
     Analyzing both technical and legal compliance with
applicable privacy law and regulations, as well as accepted privacy
policy; and
     Providing documentation on the flow of personal
information and information requirements within DOT systems.
    The Medical Examiner's Certification Integration NPRM would require
the collection of PII; therefore, a PIA is required for the rulemaking
and was prepared. It was belatedly included in the rulemaking docket
and then made available on the DOT Privacy Web site late in 2013. The
supporting PIA, available for review in the docket, gives a complete
explanation of FMCSA practices for protecting PII, as updated from the
2012 PIA prepared in support of the National Registry of Certified
Medical Examiners final rule. In addition, the 2013 PIA updates the
frequency with which PII is submitted to the Agency, adds the driver's
mailing address which is currently being collected on the medical forms
to the list of PII required to be submitted to the National Registry,
and outlines how certain PII would be transmitted to the State
licensing agencies. There is no additional PII collected under this
NPRM. The updated 2013 PIA is specifically related to both the National
Registry and Medical Examiner's Certification Integration NPRM and the
entire medical program administered by FMCSA. Upon reviewing the PIA,
you should have a broad understanding of the risks and potential
effects associated with the Department activities, processes, and
systems described and approaches taken to mitigate any potential
privacy risks.
    The Agency requests comments on the possible impact of the rules
proposed in the NPRM on the protection of privacy of information used
in determining the physical qualifications of drivers of commercial
motor vehicles, in light of the evaluation by the Agency and the
Department of the protection of privacy of information set out in the
Privacy Impact Assessment.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: May 21,
2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-12176 Filed 5-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: September 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 51294]
[DOCID:fr02se08-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RR08-5-000]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

August 15, 2008.
    Take notice that on August 14, 2008, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation filed a Petition for Approval of Amendments to
the Bylaws of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation,
pursuant to section 215(f) of the Federal Power Act and CFR 39.10.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 3, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20209 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 25809]
[DOCID:fr07my07-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: [To be Published].

Status: Closed meeting.

Place:  100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting: Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at
2 p.m.

Change in the Meeting: Time change.
    The closed meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 2 p.m. has
been changed to Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 12:30 p.m.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 2, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8649 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Informal Public Hearing

on the Proposed Rule for

Electric Power Generation,

Transmission, and Distribution

(Subpart V of Part 1926 and § 1910.269);

and

Electrical Protective Equipment

(§§ 1926.97 and 1910.137)

Opening Statement by

Ms. Dorothy Dougherty

Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

October 28, 2009

Introductory Remarks

Good morning, Judge Vittone, ladies, and gentlemen. I am Dorothy
Dougherty, the Director of the Directorate of Standards and Guidance in
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). On behalf of
OSHA, I welcome you to this informal public hearing on the limited
reopening of the record for the proposed standards for Electric Power
Generation, Transmission, and Distribution, and on the proposed
standards for Electrical Protective Equipment.

I will now introduce the staff that is with me today:

David Wallis, Director of OSHA’s Office of Engineering Safety

Robert Biersner, Counsel for Safety Standards in the DOL Solicitor’s
Office

Lauren Goodman, project attorney with the DOL Solicitor’s Office

Robert Burt, Director of OSHA’s Office of Regulatory Analysis, and

Robert Stone, project economist with OSHA’s Office of Regulatory
Analysis

This hearing on minimum approach distances is an important part of
OSHA’s effort to update the existing standards for the construction,
operation, maintenance, and repair of electric power installations. OSHA
has two standards covering this work: Subpart V of Part 1926, which
covers the construction of these installations, and section 1910.269,
which covers their maintenance and repair. Your participation and
contributions through your written comments and your testimony on the
narrow issues that are the subject of this public hearing are greatly
appreciated, and will provide important information for the record upon
which OSHA will base any minimum approach distances that it includes in
the final rule.

Today’s informal public hearing on minimum approach distances, which
commenced at 9:30 a.m., is scheduled to end at 1:30 p.m.

Summary

On June 15, 2005, OSHA published a proposed rule to revise the general
industry and construction standards for electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work. The proposed standards included
revised minimum approach distance tables. Those tables limit how close
an employee (or a conductive object he or she is contacting) may get to
an energized circuit part. OSHA developed the minimum approach distances
in the proposed rule using principles adopted from the 1993 National
Electrical Safety Code and ANSI/IEEE Standard 516-1987.

OSHA received public comments on the proposed standard and held an
informal public hearing from March 6 through 14, 2006. Hearing
participants had until July 14, 2006, to file post-hearing comments and
briefs.

After the rulemaking record on the proposal closed, the Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers technical committee that was
responsible for revising IEEE Standard 516 identified what in its view
was an error in its calculation of minimum approach distances for
certain voltages. So, on October 22, 2008, OSHA reopened the record on
the proposal to obtain comments related to the affected minimum approach
distances. The record remained open on this limited basis for 30 days,
or until November 21, 2008.

After that first reopening period, the IEEE committee adopted and
published a new edition of IEEE Standard 516. The revised standard
adopts a new methodology, using a different set of formulas, for
calculating phase-to-phase minimum approach distances for voltages of
72.6 kilovolts and higher. The new IEEE Standard also contains a
slightly revised methodology for calculating minimum approach distances
for voltages up to 72.5 kilovolts. In light of these recent changes to
the IEEE standard, OSHA has reopened the record on this proposal for a
second time to obtain additional comments on the minimum approach
distances specified in OSHA’s 2005 proposed rule.

The second reopening notice was published on September 14, 2009. The
record remained open for the submission of comments about minimum
approach distances until October 15, 2009. In the September 14th Federal
Register notice, OSHA also announced this public hearing on the limited
issues that are the subject of this reopening of the record and that we
are here today to discuss.

To date, OSHA has not revised its proposed standard in any way. Nor has
the Agency made a determination as to whether there was an error in the
calculation of the minimum approach distances that appeared in its 2005
proposal. It should be noted, however, that the minimum approach
distances contained in OSHA’s proposed rule were based on certain
criteria, and OSHA will consider any comments or evidence in the record
suggesting that its calculations based on those criteria were in error.

The OSHA witnesses here today will be glad to answer any questions you
may have on the minimum approach distances in OSHA’s 2005 proposal.
However, we will not take questions pertaining to the methodology for
calculating minimum approach distances that is used in the new IEEE
Standard 516. We are soliciting information from the public on those
questions, and we anticipate that the record developed in response to
the two reopening notices, and during and after this hearing, will
provide sufficient evidence to permit OSHA to make a determination about
what the minimum approach distances should be in the final rule.

Finally, as OSHA clearly stated in the hearing notice, and as I stated
earlier, the reopening of the record is limited to issues related to
minimum approach distances. Consequently, OSHA considers questions
related to other issues or other provisions in the proposed standard to
be beyond the scope of this hearing.

Closing Remarks

I know that all of us here today share the goal of protecting
America’s employees who construct, maintain, and operate electric
power installations. To accomplish that goal, we must ensure that we
obtain the best possible information during this rulemaking. Minimum
approach distances may be an important part of the final rule, and I
want to assure you that OSHA will consider all the information, data,
and testimony presented to the Agency during the two reopening comment
periods and as part of this public hearing as it drafts the final
standard.

Once again, thank you for your interest in employee safety and health
and for providing your views to the Agency on this matter. At this time,
we will answer any questions the hearing participants may have about the
minimum approach distances in OSHA’s 2005 proposal.

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24494-24495]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0044]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections.
    This document describes the collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2014-0044 using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    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 number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kathy Sifrit, Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety
Research (NTI-132), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W46-472, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Sifrit's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and her email address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following: (i)
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the
agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) how to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including the
use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In
compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on the
following proposed collection of information:

Older Drivers and Navigation Systems

    Type of Request--New information collection requirement.
    OMB Clearance Number--None.
    Form Number--NHTSA 1260.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval--3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information--The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposes to collect information
from licensed drivers about their age, driver license status, driving
habits, vehicle type and age, and experience using Electronic
Navigation Systems (ENSs). Participation in the study will be
voluntary. Drivers will volunteer for the study by responding to an
emailed or individually-delivered descriptive solicitation or as a
result of reading a call for volunteers in a publication or on a
poster. The drivers will be asked a brief series of questions to
determine eligibility to participate in a study of older adults'
driving performance while they drive to familiar destinations,
unfamiliar destinations using paper directions, and unfamiliar
destinations using an ENS. A project assistant will then describe the
proposed study to those respondents who qualify for the study and
answer all questions that the drivers may have. Each driver who meets
the criteria for subject selection will then be asked if he or she
wishes to participate. If yes, a project assistant will then determine
the availability of the respondent to participate in the data
collection activities and, if available, schedule the volunteer for the
first data collection session.
    The first data collection session will assess the participant for
cognitive impairment. If no significant cognitive impairment is
detected using standard testing instruments, the volunteer will be
accepted as a participant, and an on-the-road data collection session
will be scheduled. During the on-the-road session, the participant will
drive his/her own car on predetermined routes with an ENS and with
paper directions. A Driver Rehabilitation Specialist (DRS) will score
driving quality and adherence to the prescribed route, and a portable
instrument package will record driving parameters such as speed and
acceleration.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--NHTSA was established to reduce the number of deaths,
injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on
the Nation's highways. As part of this statutory mandate, NHTSA is
authorized to conduct research as a foundation for the development of
motor vehicle standards and traffic safety programs.
    Some older drivers have difficulty navigating to unfamiliar places.
As a result, they either restrict their driving thereby decreasing
their quality of life or attempt to drive and potentially encounter
difficulties including becoming lost or using cognitive resources for
wayfinding rather than for maneuvering safely through traffic. A number
of electronic devices have been advanced as means to prolong older
adults' driving careers. These include ENSs, which could aid older
drivers through freeing cognitive resources otherwise needed for
wayfinding. It is possible, however, that these systems may increase
driver workload because they select a route that is different than the
driver expects or by causing a distraction. The purpose of the study is
to document differences in older adults' driving performance while they
drive to familiar destinations, unfamiliar destinations using paper
directions, and unfamiliar destinations using an ENS. The project will
also explore the effects of familiarity using an ENS on driving
performance. It will then assess the benefits of providing training in
using an ENS to older adults. The proposed questions will allow
research staff to ensure that prospective participants meet study
inclusion criteria and facilitate their study participation.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
Respondents will include up to 320 drivers 60 years old or older
licensed in the State of North Carolina. Since not all volunteers will
qualify, the agency proposes to conduct 320 conversations (telephone or
face-to-face depending on how the volunteer was recruited) with
potential participants to yield 160 participants.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information--The 320 conversations
will average 10 minutes in length including introduction, qualifying
questions, potential participant questions, logistical questions,
scheduling if the volunteer qualifies, and conclusion. The total
estimated annual burden will be 53.33 hours. Participants will incur no
costs from the data collection, and participants will incur no record
keeping burden and no record keeping cost from the information
collection.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2014.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2014-09840 Filed 4-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P