[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3759-3760]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01441]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0899]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0058

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for
reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of
information: 1625-0058, Application for Permit to Transport Municipal
and Commercial Waste. Our ICR describe the information we seek to
collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
February 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2017-0899] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email: [email protected].
    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention
Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2017-0899], and must be received by February 26,
2018.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0058.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 49638, October 26, 2017)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Application for Permit to Transport Municipal and Commercial
Waste.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0058.
    Summary: This information collection provides the basis for issuing
or denying a permit, required under 33 U.S.C. 2601 and 33 CFR 151.1009,
for the transportation of municipal or commercial waste in the coastal
waters of the United States.
    Need: In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 2601, the U.S. Coast Guard
issued regulations requiring an owner or operator of a vessel to apply
for a permit to transport municipal or commercial waste in the United
States and to display an identification number or other marking on
their vessel.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: Every 18 months.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains at 13 hours a
year.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: January 18, 2018.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-01441 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 54736]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP19-110-000.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Sea Robin Housekeeping to be
effective 11/23/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20181023-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-111-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Entergy
911521 to be effective 12/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20181023-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-112-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2018-10-23 CP, Encana
to be effective 10/23/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20181023-5243.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-113-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 102318 Negotiated Rates--Mieco
Inc. R-7080-06 to be effective 11/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20181023-5248.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-114-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 102318 Negotiated Rates--Mieco
Inc. R-7080-05 to be effective 11/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20181023-5249.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

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

    Dated: October 24, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-23759 Filed 10-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 178 (Friday, September 17, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51835-51838]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19961]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0786; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00429-A]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-06-16, which applies to all Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Models
PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-
6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/
C-H2, and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes. AD 2012-06-16 requires installing a new
rudder and elevator locking screw and modifying the installation of the
rudder and elevator hinge bolt. Since the FAA issued AD 2012-06-16, the
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) superseded its mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) to correct an unsafe
condition on these products. This proposed AD would not retain any
actions required by AD 2012-06-16 and would require inspecting and
modifying the rudder, elevator, and right-hand (RH) aileron hinge bolt
installations. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 1,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Pilatus
Aircraft Ltd., Customer Support General Aviation, CH-6371 Stans,
exception occurred on : 2021-19961.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-19961.htm
Switzerland; phone: +41 848 24 7 365; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; website: https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0786; 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 NPRM, the MCAI,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; phone:
(816) 329-4059; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0786;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00429-A'' at the beginning of your
comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Doug
Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, MO 64106. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2012-06-16, Amendment 39-16997 (77 FR 19061,
March 30, 2012) (AD 2012-06-16) for Pilatus Models PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-
H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2,
PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/C1-
H2 airplanes. AD 2012-06-16 was prompted by MCAI originated by EASA,
which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European
Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2011-0230, dated December 9, 2011, to
identify and correct an unsafe condition identified as loose elevator
and rudder

hinge bolts caused by incorrect torqueing and locking of the bolts.
    AD 2012-06-16 requires installing a new elevator and rudder locking
screw and modifying the installation of the elevator and rudder hinge
bolt. The FAA issued AD 2012-06-16 to prevent in-flight failure of the
elevator or rudder attachment, which could result in loss of control of
the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2012-06-16 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2012-06-16, EASA superseded EASA AD 2011-
0230, dated December 9, 2011, and issued EASA AD 2021-0098, dated April
9, 2021 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''). The MCAI states:

    Occurrences were reported where, on certain PC-6 aeroplanes, the
elevator or the rudders was lost or partially detached during
flight. All the occurrences happened on PC-6 aeroplanes in CONFIG 1.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to in-flight
failure of the elevator or rudder attachment, possibly resulting in
reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus issued SB
55-001 (original issue and Revision 1) to provide rework
instructions for the elevator and rudder hinge bolt locking.
Consequently, EASA published AD 2011-0230 to require this rework.
Subsequently, Pilatus issued recommended SB 55-003 (later revised)
to provide instructions to modify the hinge bolt installation of the
elevator and rudder. This [service bulletin] SB, being recommended
only, had no impact on the existing EASA AD.
    Since that [EASA] AD and the recommended Pilatus SB 55-003 were
published, the latest risk assessment determined that the
modification of the hinge bolt installation of the elevator, rudder
and right-hand (RH) aileron installation must be required to reach
an acceptable level of safety for the affected aeroplanes.
Consequently, Pilatus issued the SB, as defined in this [EASA] AD,
to provide instructions to modify the affected aeroplanes into
CONFIG 2 standard.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD supersedes EASA
AD 2011-0230 and requires, for certain aeroplanes, a one-time
inspection of the elevator and rudder installation, followed by
repetitive inspections of the elevator and rudder, and, depending on
findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). This
[EASA] AD also requires modification of the elevator, rudder and RH
aileron hinge bolt installations into CONFIG 2, which is the
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this
[EASA] AD. Finally, this [EASA] AD prohibits (re)installation of
affected parts.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0786.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Pilatus PC-6 Service Bulletin (SB) No. 55-005,
dated February 25, 2021 (Pilatus SB 55-005). The service information
specifies procedures for repetitively inspecting the hinge bolt
installations and taking any necessary corrective actions until the
hinge bolt is modified. Modifying the hinge bolt installation in
accordance with Pilatus SB 55-005 makes the airplane a CONFIG 2 design.
This service information 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.

Other Related Service Information

    Pilatus also issued Pilatus PC-6 SB No. 55-003, dated November 29,
2013; Pilatus PC-6 SB No. 55-003, Revision 1, dated December 9, 2014;
Pilatus PC-6 SB No. 55-003, Revision 2, dated January 19, 2017; and
Pilatus PC-6 SB No. 55-003, Revision 3, dated November 6, 2017. This
service information specifies procedures for modifying the hinge bolt
installations, which makes the airplane a CONFIG 2 design. This service
information was superseded by Pilatus SB 55-005.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority,
it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM
after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously. This proposed AD would
not retain any actions of AD 2012-06-06.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 50 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                  Labor cost            Parts cost         Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspecting CONFIG 1 airplanes.  4.5 work-hours x   Not applicable.........  $382.50 per        $19,125 per
                                 $85 per hour =                              inspection cycle.  inspection
                                 $382.50.                                                       cycle.
Modifying from CONFIG 1 to      14 work-hours x    $1,200.................  $2,390...........  $119,500.
 CONFIG 2.                       $85 per hour =
                                 $1,190.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
corrective actions that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
airplanes that might need these actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accomplishing corrective actions..............  .5 work-hours x $85 per hour =              $200         $242.50
                                                 $42.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have
federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD
would 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 the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 2012-06-16, Amendment 39-16997 (77
FR 19061, March 30, 2012); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2021-0786; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-00429-A.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by November 1, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-06-16, Amendment 39-16997 (77 FR 19061,
March 30, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6-H1,
PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-
6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2,
and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any
category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c): These airplanes may also be identified
as Fairchild Republic Company airplanes, Fairchild Industries
airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller
Corporation airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Codes 2700, Flight
Control System; 2710, Aileron Control System; 2720, Rudder Control
System; and 2730, Elevator Control System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as detachment or
partial detachment of the elevator or rudder in flight. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the elevator or rudder
attachment. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    The following definitions apply for purposes of this AD.
    (1) Group 1 airplanes: Airplanes that have not been modified in
accordance with Pilatus PC-6 Service Bulletin (SB) No. 55-003, dated
November 29, 2013 (Pilatus SB 55-003); Pilatus PC-6 SB No. 55-003,
Revision 1, dated December 9, 2014 (Pilatus SB 55-003R1); Pilatus
PC-6 SB No. 55-003, Revision 2, dated January 19, 2017 (Pilatus 55-
003R2); Pilatus PC-6 SB No. 55-003, Revision 3, dated November 6,
2017 (Pilatus 55-003R3); or Pilatus PC-6 SB No. 55-005, dated
February 25, 2021 (Pilatus SB 55-005).
    (2) Group 2 airplanes: Airplanes that have been modified in
accordance with Pilatus SB 55-003, SB 55-003R1, SB 55-003R2, Pilatus
SB 55-003R3; or Pilatus SB 55-005.

(h) Inspect Elevator, Rudder, and RH Aileron Hinge Bolt Installations

    (1) For Group 1 airplanes: Within 14 days after the effective
date of this AD, inspect the elevator, rudder, and RH aileron hinge
bolt installations and take any corrective actions before further
flight by following the Accomplishment Instructions-Part 1-On
Aircraft-Inspection in Pilatus SB 55-005.
    (2) For Group 1 airplanes: Within 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS) after the inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS until the
modification required by paragraph (i) of this AD is done, inspect
the elevator, rudder, and RH aileron hinge bolt installations and
take any corrective actions before further flight by following the
Accomplishment Instructions-Part 2-On Aircraft-CONFIG 1-Repeat
Inspections in Pilatus SB 55-005.

(i) Modify Group 1 Airplanes

    Within 11 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the
hinge bolt installations on the elevator, rudder, and RH aileron
assemblies by following the Accomplishment Instructions-Part 3-On
Aircraft-Modification from CONFIG 1 to CONFIG 2 in Pilatus SB 55-
005. Modifying the elevator, rudder, and RH aileron hinge bolt
installations terminates the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

(j) Installation Prohibition

    As of the following applicable compliance time, do not install
on any airplane an elevator assembly part number (P/N)
<IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, 6305.0010.00, 6305.0010.52,
6305.0010.53, 6305.0010.54, or 6305.0010.55, or a rudder assembly P/
N <IP_ADDRESS>, 6302.0010.51, or 6302.0010.52.
    (1) For Group 1 airplanes: As of the modification required by
paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (2) For Group 2 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, 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 manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in Related Information or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Doug Rudolph,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft

Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0098, dated April 9, 2021, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2021-0786.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Support General Aviation, CH-6371
Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 848 24 7 365; email:
exception occurred on : 2021-19961.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-19961.htm
aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; website: https://www.pilatus-
aircraft.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on September 9, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-19961 Filed 9-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


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-NYSEArca-2011-72 and should be submitted on or before
November 10, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27197 Filed 10-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 10310-10313]
[DOCID:fr26fe08-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 28165; 812-13447]

Triangle Capital Corporation; Notice of Application

February 20, 2008.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 23(a), 23(b) and 63 of the Act, and under sections 57(a)(4)
and 57(i) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act authorizing certain
joint transactions otherwise prohibited by section 57(a)(4) of the Act.

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

    Summary of the Application: Triangle Capital Corporation
(``Triangle'') requests an order to permit it to issue restricted
shares of its common stock under the terms of its employee and director
compensation plan.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 31, 2007, and
amended on February 20, 2008.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicant with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on March 17, 2008, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Triangle, c/o Garland S. Tucker
III, Triangle Capital Corporation, 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 104,
Raleigh, NC 27612.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Yoder, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-6878, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-1520 (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicant's Representations

    1. Triangle, a Maryland corporation, is an internally managed, non-
diversified, closed-end investment company that has elected to be
regulated as a business development company (``BDC'') under

the Act.\1\ Triangle is a specialty finance company that provides
customized financing solutions to companies with annual revenues
between $10 million and $100 million. Shares of Triangle's common stock
are traded on The NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol ``TCAP.''
Triangle's initial public offering was completed on February 21, 2007.
As of December 31, 2007, there were 6,803,863 shares of Triangle's
common stock outstanding and Triangle had eleven employees, including
the employees of its wholly-owned consolidated subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 2(a)(48) defines a BDC to be any closed-end
investment company that operates for the purpose of making
investments in securities described in sections 55(a)(1) through
55(a)(3) of the Act and makes available significant managerial
assistance with respect to the issuers of such securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Triangle currently has an eight member board of directors
(``Board'') of whom three are ``interested persons'' of Triangle within
the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act and five are non-interested
persons (``Non-interested Directors''). Triangle has five directors who
are not officers or employees of Triangle (the ``Non-employee
Directors'').
    3. Triangle believes that its successful performance depends on its
ability to offer compensation packages to its professionals that are
competitive with those offered by its competitors and other investment
management businesses. Triangle believes its ability to offer
compensation plans providing for the periodic issuance of shares of
restricted stock (i.e., stock that, at the time of issuance, is subject
to certain forfeiture restrictions, and thus is restricted as to its
transferability until such forfeiture restrictions have lapsed) (the
``Restricted Stock'') is vital to its future growth and success.
Effective February 13, 2007, Triangle adopted the 2007 Equity Incentive
Plan. Triangle proposes to amend and restate the 2007 Equity Incentive
Plan (``Amended and Restated Plan'') to permit the issuance of shares
of Restricted Stock to its Non-employee Directors, employees and
employees of its wholly-owned consolidated subsidiaries (collectively,
the ``Participants'' and each, a ``Participant'').
    4. The Amended and Restated Plan will authorize the issuance of
shares of Restricted Stock subject to certain forfeiture restrictions.
These restrictions may relate to continued employment or service on the
Board, as the case may be (lapsing either on an annual or other
periodic basis or on a ``cliff'' basis, i.e., at the end of a stated
period of time), or other restrictions deemed by the Board to be
appropriate. The Restricted Stock will not be transferable except for
disposition by gift, will or intestacy. Except to the extent restricted
under the terms of the Amended and Restated Plan, a Participant granted
Restricted Stock will have all the rights of any other shareholder,
including the right to vote the Restricted Stock and the right to
receive dividends. During the restriction period, the Restricted Stock
generally may not be sold, transferred, pledged, hypothecated,
margined, or otherwise encumbered by the Participant. Except as the
Board otherwise determines, upon termination of a Participant's
employment or service on the Board during the applicable restriction
period, Restricted Stock for which forfeiture restrictions have not
lapsed at the time of such termination shall be forfeited.
    5. The maximum amount of Restricted Stock that may be issued under
the Amended and Restated Plan will be 10% of the outstanding shares of
Triangle's common stock on the effective date of the Amended and
Restated Plan plus 10% of the outstanding number of shares of
Triangle's common stock issued or delivered by Triangle (other than
pursuant to compensation plans) during the term of the Amended and
Restated Plan.\2\ The Amended and Restated Plan limits the total number
of shares that may be awarded to any single Participant in a single
year to 100,000 shares. In addition, no Participant may be granted more
than 25% of the shares of common stock reserved for issuance under the
Amended and Restated Plan. The Amended and Restated Plan will be
administered by the Board, which will award shares of Restricted Stock
to the Participants (except for Non-employee Directors) from time to
time as part of the Participants' compensation based on a Participant's
actual or expected performance and value to Triangle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of calculating compliance with this limit,
Triangle will count as Restricted Stock all shares of Triangle's
common stock that are issued pursuant to the Amended and Restated
Plan less any shares that are forfeited back to Triangle and
cancelled as a result of forfeiture restrictions not lapsing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Under the Amended and Restated Plan, Triangle's Non-Employee
Directors will each receive a grant of $30,000 worth of shares of
Restricted Stock at the beginning of each one-year term of service on
the Board, for which forfeiture restrictions would lapse one year from
the grant date. The Amended and Restated Plan will be administered by
the Board, and the grants of Restricted Stock under the Amended and
Restated Plan to Non-employee Directors will be automatic and will not
be changed without Commission approval.
    7. The Amended and Restated Plan will be submitted for approval to
Triangle's shareholders, and will become effective upon such approval,
subject to the issuance of the requested order.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

Sections 23(a) and (b), Section 63

    1. Under section 63 of the Act, the provisions of section 23(a) of
the Act generally prohibiting a registered closed-end investment
company from issuing securities for services or for property other than
cash or securities are made applicable to BDCs. This provision would
prohibit the issuance of Restricted Stock as a part of the Amended and
Restated Plan.
    2. Section 23(b) generally prohibits a closed-end management
investment company from selling its common stock at a price below its
current net asset value (``NAV''). Section 63(2) makes section 23(b)
applicable to BDCs unless certain conditions are met. Because
Restricted Stock that would be granted under the Amended and Restated
Plan would not meet the terms of section 63(2), sections 23(b) and 63
would prevent the issuance of the Restricted Stock.
    3. Section 6(c) provides, in part, that the Commission may, by
order upon application, conditionally or unconditionally exempt any
person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes thereof, from
any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that the exemption is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of the Act.
    4. Triangle requests an order pursuant to section 6(c) of the Act
granting an exemption from the provisions of sections 23(a) and (b) and
section 63 of the Act. Triangle states that the concerns underlying
those sections include: (i) Preferential treatment of investment
company insiders and the use of options and other rights by insiders to
obtain control of the investment company; (ii) complication of the
investment company's structure that makes it difficult to determine the
value of the company's shares; and (iii) dilution of shareholders'
equity in the investment company. Triangle states that the Amended and
Restated Plan does not raise the concern about preferential treatment
of Triangle's insiders because the Amended and Restated Plan is a bona
fide

compensation plan of the type that is common among corporations
generally. In addition, section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Act permits a BDC to
issue to its officers, directors and employees, pursuant to an
executive compensation plan, warrants, options and rights to purchase
the BDC's voting securities, subject to certain requirements. Triangle
states that, for reasons that are unclear, section 61 and its
legislative history do not address the issuance by a BDC of restricted
stock as incentive compensation. Triangle states, however, that the
issuance of Restricted Stock is substantially similar, for purposes of
investor protection under the Act, to the issuance of warrants,
options, and rights as contemplated by section 61. Triangle also
asserts that the Amended and Restated Plan would not become a means for
insiders to obtain control of Triangle because the maximum number of
Triangle's voting securities that may be issued pursuant to the Amended
and Restated Plan will be limited as set forth in the application.
Triangle's current intention is to issue only shares of Restricted
Stock as incentive compensation; however, if Triangle issues stock
options in the future, it will do so pursuant to section 61 and in
compliance with the terms and conditions of the application. Moreover,
no individual Participant could be issued more than 25% of the shares
reserved for issuance under the Amended and Restated Plan.
    5. Triangle further states that the Amended and Restated Plan will
not unduly complicate Triangle's structure because equity-based
employee compensation arrangements are widely used among corporations
and commonly known to investors. Triangle notes that the Amended and
Restated Plan will be submitted to its shareholders. Triangle
represents that a concise, ``plain English'' description of the Amended
and Restated Plan, including its potential dilutive effect, will be
provided in the proxy materials that will be submitted to Triangle's
shareholders. Triangle also states that it will comply with the proxy
disclosure requirements in Item 10 of Schedule 14A under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Triangle further notes that the Amended and
Restated Plan will be disclosed to investors in accordance with the
requirements of the Form N-2 registration statement for closed-end
investment companies, and pursuant to the standards and guidelines
adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board for operating
companies. In addition, Triangle will comply with the disclosure
requirements for executive compensation plans applicable to operating
companies under the Exchange Act.\3\ Triangle thus concludes that the
Amended and Restated Plan will be adequately disclosed to investors and
appropriately reflected in the market value of Triangle's shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In addition, Triangle will comply with the amendments to the
disclosure requirements for executive and director compensation,
related party transactions, director independence and other
corporate governance matters, and security ownership of officers and
directors to the extent adopted and applicable to BDCs. See
Executive Compensation and Related Party Disclosure, Release No. 34-
53185 (Jan. 27, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Triangle acknowledges that, while awards granted under the
Amended and Restated Plan would have a dilutive effect on the
shareholders' equity in Triangle, that effect would be outweighed by
the anticipated benefits of the Amended and Restated Plan to Triangle
and its shareholders. Triangle asserts that it needs the flexibility to
provide the requested equity-based employee compensation in order to be
able to compete effectively with other financial services firms for
talented professionals. These professionals, Triangle suggests, in turn
are likely to increase Triangle's performance and shareholder value.
Triangle also asserts that equity-based compensation would more closely
align the interests of Triangle's employees with those of Triangle's
shareholders. Triangle believes that the granting of shares of
Restricted Stock to Non-employee Directors under the Amended and
Restated Plan is fair and reasonable because of the skills and
experience that such directors provide to Triangle. Such skills and
experience are necessary for the management and oversight of Triangle's
investments and operations. Triangle believes that granting the shares
of Restricted Stock will provide significant incentives for Non-
employee Directors to remain on the Board and to devote their best
efforts to the success of Triangle's business in the future. The
issuance of shares of Restricted Stock will also provide a means for
Triangle's Non-employee Directors to increase their ownership interest
in Triangle, thereby helping to ensure a close identification of their
interests with those of Triangle and its shareholders. In addition,
Triangle states that Triangle's shareholders will be further protected
by the conditions to the requested order that assure continuing
oversight of the operation of the Amended and Restated Plan by
Triangle's Board.

Section 57(a)(4), Rule 17d-1

    7. Section 57(a) proscribes certain transactions between a BDC and
persons related to the BDC in the manner described in section 57(b)
(``57(b) persons''), absent a Commission order. Section 57(a)(4)
generally prohibits a 57(b) person from effecting a transaction in
which the BDC is a joint participant absent such an order. Rule 17d-1,
made applicable to BDCs by section 57(i), proscribes participation in a
``joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan,''
which includes a stock option or purchase plan. Employees and directors
of a BDC are 57(b) persons. Thus, the issuance of shares of Restricted
Stock could be deemed to involve a joint transaction involving a BDC
and a 57(b) person in contravention of section 57(a)(4). Rule 17d-1(b)
provides that, in considering relief pursuant to the rule, the
Commission will consider (i) whether the participation of the company
in a joint enterprise is consistent with the Act's policies and
purposes and (ii) the extent to which that participation is on a basis
different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
    8. Triangle requests an order pursuant to section 57(a)(4) and rule
17d-1 to permit the Amended and Restated Plan. Triangle states that the
Amended and Restated Plan, although benefiting the Participants and
Triangle in different ways, are in the interests of Triangle's
shareholders because the Amended and Restated Plan will help Triangle
attract and retain talented professionals, help align the interests of
Triangle's employees with those of its shareholders, and in turn help
produce a better return to Triangle's shareholders. Thus, Triangle
asserts that the Amended and Restated Plan is consistent with the
policies and purposes of the Act.

Applicant's Conditions

    Triangle agrees that the order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. The Amended and Restated Plan will be approved by Triangle's
shareholders in accordance with section 61(a)(3)(A)(iv) of the 1940
Act.
    2. Each issuance of Restricted Stock to officers and employees will
be approved by the required majority, as defined in section 57(o) of
the Act, of Triangle's directors on the basis that such issuance is in
the best interests of Triangle and its shareholders.
    3. The amount of voting securities that would result from the
exercise of all of Triangle's outstanding warrants,

options, and rights, together with any Restricted Stock issued pursuant
to the Amended and Restated Plan, at the time of issuance shall not
exceed 25% of the outstanding voting securities of Triangle, except
that if the amount of voting securities that would result from the
exercise of all of Triangle's outstanding warrants, options, and rights
issued to Triangle's directors, officers, and employees, together with
any Restricted Stock issued pursuant to the Amended and Restated Plan,
would exceed 15% of the outstanding voting securities of Triangle, then
the total amount of voting securities that would result from the
exercise of all outstanding warrants, options, and rights, together
with any Restricted Stock issued pursuant to the Amended and Restated
Plan, at the time of issuance shall not exceed 20% of the outstanding
voting securities of Triangle.
    4. The maximum amount of Restricted Stock that may be issued under
the Amended and Restated Plan will be 10% of the outstanding shares of
common stock of Triangle on the effective date of the Amended and
Restated Plan plus 10% of the number of shares of Triangle's common
stock issued or delivered by Triangle (other than pursuant to
compensation plans) during the term of the Amended and Restated Plan.
    5. The Board will review periodically the potential impact that the
issuance of Restricted Stock under the Amended and Restated Plan could
have on Triangle's earnings and NAV per share, such review to take
place prior to any decisions to grant Restricted Stock under the
Amended and Restated Plan, but in no event less frequently than
annually. Adequate procedures and records will be maintained to permit
such review. The Board will be authorized to take appropriate steps to
ensure that the grant of Restricted Stock under the Amended and
Restated Plan would not have an effect contrary to the interests of
Triangle's shareholders. This authority will include the authority to
prevent or limit the granting of additional Restricted Stock under the
Amended and Restated Plan. All records maintained pursuant to this
condition will be subject to examination by the Commission and its
staff.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-3555 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 33151-33153]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its denial of 330 applications from
individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal vision standard
applicable to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the
denials. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the
vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise
safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does
not provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater
than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal vision standard for a renewable two-year period if it
finds ``such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
absent such an exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption
are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
    Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 330 individual exemption requests on
their merits and made a determination that these applicants do not
satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of
the Federal exemption program. Each applicant has, prior to this
notice, received a letter of final disposition on his/her exemption
request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial
and constitute final Agency action. The list published today summarizes
the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by
periodically publishing names and reasons for denials.
    The following 38 applicants lacked sufficient driving experience
during the three-year period prior to the date of their application.

Atkinson, Ray C.,
Bivens, Mark C.,
Chance, Thomas A.,
Christian, Travis M.,
Chupp, John,
Davis, Clayton T.,
Edler, III, John E.,
Engelen, Patricia,
Evertson, Jess C.,
Gilbert, Ron,
Goldman, Gary E.,
Gordy, David L.,
Haltiwanger, Ivory,
Haubrich, Eugene,
Kauffman, Herman,
Kaul, Bruce,
Kell, William B.,
Kelly, Thomas B.,
Law, Stevie J.,
Lettenberger, Steven A.,
Logan, Timothy R.,
Martin, Donald,
Merckling, Doyle W.,
Mullen, David A.,
Nelson, Roger L.,
Ottaway, David,
Reinhard, James,
Roeder, Michael A.,
Runde, Faber A.,
Salazar, Carlos E.,
Sarphie, Jeffery E.,
Seamster, Robert W.,
Suess, Richard A.,
Tallon, Thomas,
Tye, Charles L.,
Weiderhold, Russell S.,
Wenger, Jeff B.,
Wright, Jason D.

    The following 52 applicants do not have any experience operating a
CMV.

Bailey, Ryan B.,
Beach, Steven W.,
Berglund, Stanley K.,
Bowermaster, Tammy L.,
Broadstock, Donald R.,
Bushard, Eric P.,
Clitton, Richard T.,
Davidson, Larry A.,
Finnegan, Patrick J.,
Garza, Aaron F.,
Gomez, Roberto F.,
Gossett, Timothy M.,
Hammock, Jr., John W.,
Happ, Michael A.,
Harper, Kendrick L.,
Harris, Charles,
Hartzheim, Matthew L.,
Hirdes, Cary,
 Hodo, Dustin M.,
Holliday, Jr., William A.,
Holloway, Jamie W.,
Homan, Brandon M.,
Irons, Jr., James S.,
Jones, Austin R.,

Jones, Deborah A.,
Lackey, John D.,
Lockett, Antonio D.,
Madrigal, Daniel S.,
Maldonado, Edgardo L.,
Malone, Michael E.,
McCartney, Carlton L.,
Merrill, Beau R.,
Mickelson, Shane A.,
Milton, Robert E.,
Morris, Timothy J.,
Morrison, Kevin A.,
 Murphy, Marvis L.,
Plunkett, Thomas B.,
Pollard, Todd J.,
Ramos, Arturo C.,
Roberts, William E.,
Servatius, Randy P.,
Shannon, Patrick L.,
Silva, Jr., Juan M.,
Spivey, Daniel L.,
Sprague, Brian W.,
Sullivan, Shannon S.,
Theis, Glenn R.,
Torres, Jr., Ramon,
Tyler, Jr., Raymond E.,
White, William S.,
Williams, Aloysious L.

    The following 70 applicants do not have 3 years of experience
driving a CMV on public highways with the vision deficiency.

Bader, Lisa A.,
Ballot, Frederick R.,
Boice, Frederick A.,
Brock, Richard W.,
Brown, Robert L.,
Burcham, Jimmy L.,
Cockrum, William R.,
Covert, LyDale M.,
Davis, Kelly J.,
Dellar, Andrew D.,
Delossantos, Felicia,
Derr, Gregory E.,
Doran, Edward T.,
Dukes, David,
Espinoza, Jr., Ralph,
Estrada, Sr., Henry,
Flores, Alvaro,
Frasier, Milan D.,
Fulkerson, Gerald E.,
Garvin, Sean T.,
Gibson, Omar,
Gragg, Danny L.,
Gutierrez, Jr., Vicente,
Gregerson, Paul A.,
Harrison, David,
Hayes, Patricia D.,
Hill, Robert C.,
Ingram, III, Warren H.,
Janke, Edward R.,
Jaso, Sr., Joe H.,
Johnson, Artie E.,
Johnson, Walter S.,
Jones, Donald S.,
Kelly, David L.,
Kimkowski, Kevin M.,
Knaack, Roger A.,
Lajoie, Daniel,
Macias, Tom,
Mancera, Carlos A.,
O'Keeffe, Kevin C.,
Painter, Ralph L.,
Pierce, Patricia H.,
Pineda, Louis A.,
Pitts, Douglas,
Rasmussen, Wesley J.,
Ratcliff, Donna S.,
Rice, Robert C.,
Rosenthal, Donald A.,
Rehnke, Jerald W.,
Russell, Christopher O.,
Shepherd, David F.,
Siron, Percival C.,
Smith, Sr., Richard A.,
Sosa, Oscar A.,
Statler, Randall C.,
Stockwell, Kenneth D.,
Susi, Jeffrey W.,
Tonkinson, Greg M.,
Truong, Quoc T.,
Vanderpool, Jr., George F.,
Varnum, Joseph K.,
Vaughn, Joseph L.,
Watkins, Sean M.,
Watts, Anthony J.,
Wiles, Kevin B.,
Wiley, Larry R.,
Williams, Jr., Olen L.,
Williams, Reggie,
Zanassi, Eric C.,
Zitzmann, Timothy G.

    The following 40 applicants do not have 3 years of recent
experience driving a CMV with the vision deficiency.

Angeles, Joseph,
Barnett, Jameson L.,
Barragan, Omar,
Blankenship, III, John L.,
Bolbat, Thomas L.,
Busby, James E.,
Carroll, Michael J.,
Davis, Robert Z.,
DeMaster, Jason D.,
Everett, Jr., Edward J.,
Frederick, Douglas R.,
Hachett, Jimmy E.,
Hanson, Ronald M.,
Hays, Michael L.
Holley, Terry C.,
Hunt, Jefferson J.,
Johnson, Jr., Deward,
Johnson, Katie J.,
Martin, Neville,
Meyer, Douglas S.,
Mikulcik, Stephen W.,
Montoya, Pablo,
Moss, Charles,
Nabeshima, Erick G.,
Neil, Harry S.,
Peace, Anthony W.,
Probst, Rick L.,
Rossbach, Kenneth B..
Salter, Johnny,
Skeete, Dana,
Snook, John T.,
Spooner, Tom L.,
Taylor, Richard E.,
Treinen, Michael J.,
Trosky, George R.,
Trupia, Larry,
Urscher, Eric A.,
Whitney, Terry B.,
Williams Jr., Robert L.,
Zagorica, Osman

    The following 7 applicants do not have verifiable proof of
commercial driving experience over the past three years under normal
highway operating conditions:

Broadway, Herman A.,
Grantham, Anthony S.,
Lowery, Michael W.,
White, Jeffrey A.,
Whitehead, Wayne A.,
Lilly, Steven,
Parrott, Jr., Bobby L.

    The following 44 applicants do not have sufficient driving
experience over the past 3 years under normal highway operating
conditions.

Araya, Christian G.,
Baxter, Roger D.,
Benna, Robert A.,
Bonillas, Mark S.,
Borne, Robert L.,
Botkins, David L.,
Casey, John K.,
Chaffee, Ryan C.,
Coburn, Sr., Curtis G.,
Cox, Bobby,
Davidson, Dwayne S.,
Fuentes, Henry U.,
Garcia, Rogelio,
Grison, Geno,
Hall, Julian R.,
Handzel, Michael J.,
Harmer, Scott M.,
Hartsell, Steven D.,
Haslam, Grant L.,
Holidy, Michael B.,
Johnson, Van G.,
Kinney, Kenneth L.,
Maxwell, Brian D.,
Mix, James A.,
Nideiwodin, Victor,
Nieves, Julio,
Osborn, Clinton E.,
Perez, Fernando,
Pomerleau, Frank W.,
Reyes, Angelo,
Richart, Herman D.,
Rothove, Melvin,
Sastre, Jaime F.,
Stewart, Ricky A.,
Thomas, Charles R.,
Turley, Charles E.,
Urmston, Donald L.,
VanBooven, Harold J.,
Vann, Robert C.,
White, Kirk J.,
Williams, Matthew M.,
Willson, Wilbur,

Wilson, Keith B.,
Winkley, Michael S.

    The following 14 applicants had commercial driver's licenses
suspensions during the three-year review period in relation to a moving
violation. Applicants do not qualify for an exemption with a suspension
during the three-year period.

Adair, William L.,
Bales, Jimmy,
Christensen, Ryan J.,
Demessa Michael D.,
Douglas, Bobby R.,
Figaro, Juan F.,
Foster, Jeramie P.,
Head, Jr., Clifton E.,
Lockley, Robert,
Malone, Emanuel N.,
Martin, Jr., Edward H.,
Ramirez, Ricardo,
Sanford, Willie J.,
Timmerman, David E.

    The following 7 applicants do not hold a license which allowed
operation of vehicles over 10,000 pounds for all or part of the three-
year period.

Acrey, Sammy T.,
George, Gerry A.,
Helle, Kalen G.,
Phipps, Donald R.,
Routin, Kevin L.,
Stabeno, Lawrence E.,
Turner, Nickalous R.

    The following 30 applicants were denied for miscellaneous/multiple
reasons.

Bates, Danny K.,
Bauer, Jeffery A.,
Beauchamp, Robert O.,
Bolton, Sarah D.,
Bush, Arnold E.,
Chapman, Edward C.,
Coffin, Roland C.,
Davenport, Timothy A.,
Davis, David L.,
Delamarter, Kenneth G.
Drevetzki, Mark P.,
Elsesser, Barry L.,
Estrella, Cliserio J.,
Farnsworth, Gary P.,
Field, Roy M.,
Green, Billy D.,
Haines, Thomas E.,
Harrison, David,
Harrison, Ernest L.,
Hasty, Brett K.
Ladd, Harry A.,
Llamas, Martin,
Mariner, Mikeal W.,
McVicker, James R.,
Savely, Danny W.,
Scholz, Duane R.,
Sherfield, Sr., Timothy J.,
Sneath, Larry D.,
Taylor, Jessie J.,
Turner, Roy W.

    Two applicants, William R. Cummings and Francis Popp, had more than
2 serious CMV violations within a three-year period. Each applicant is
allowed a total of 2 moving violations, one of which can be serious.
    Three applicants, Christopher L. Kervin, Jose P. Martinez and
Robert G. Springer, were charged with a moving violation in conjunction
with a CMV accident, which is a disqualifying offense.
    One applicant, John C. Towner, contributed to an accident while
operating a CMV. Applicants do not qualify for an exemption if they
have contributed to an accident during the three-year review period.
    Two applicants, James Peltier and Inocensio Patino, did not have
sufficient peripheral vision in the better eye to qualify for an
exemption.
    One applicant, Patrick Leahy, had other medical conditions making
him otherwise unqualified under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations.
    One applicant, Allen L. Blackwell, Sr., did not submit all of the
required documentation and therefore presented no verifiable evidence
that he met the terms and conditions of the Federal vision exemption
program.
    One applicant, Dale E. St. Germaine, was disqualified because his
vision was not stable for the entire three-year review period.
    Finally, the following 17 applicants met the current federal vision
standards. Exemptions are not required for applicants who meet the
current regulations for vision.

Acierno, Luigi,
Benton, Thomas F.,
Davis, Jeff,
Forsberg, Ernest D.,
Furan, Robert D.,
Gonzalez, Juan C.,
Frach, Jeff,
Green, Billy D.,
Hilliard, David H.,
Horner, Charles,
Lambert, Charles W.,
Ports, Donald,
Pyle, David T.,
Lange, Royce E.,
Stubrich, Dennis W.,
Wade, Wayne L.,
Yancey, Keith.

    Issued on: June 5, 2008.
Charles A. Horan,
Acting Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
 [FR Doc. E8-13148 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P