[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20971-20973]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08099]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69280; File No. SR-BX-2013-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Board of Director
Qualifications

April 2, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 27, 2013, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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 By-Law Article IV, Section 4.3 to
amend the calculation of Non-Industry Directors in the Exchange's By-
Laws with respect to Qualification of Board Members.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend BX By-Law Article IV,
Section 4.3 entitled ``Qualifications'' to amend the number of Public
Directors \3\ required to be included in the calculation of Non-
Industry Directors \4\ from three Public Directors to one Public
Director for purposes of determining the number of Non-Industry
Directors that may serve on the Exchange board. The Exchange recently
filed to amend its By-Laws because the Boston Options Exchange LLC
(``BOX'') ceased to operate as an options trading facility of the
Exchange \5\ and terminated the Regulatory Services Agreement (``RSA'')
between BX and BOX effective June 1, 2012.\6\ In that filing the
Exchange noted that the BOX Trading Rules will no longer be operative
to permit options trading on

BX as of the facility termination effective date.\7\ At that time, the
Exchange filed to amend its By-Laws to remove references to BOX which
were no longer necessary.\8\ Specifically, Article I of the BX By-Laws
was amended to reflect that BOX will no longer be a facility of the
Exchange and Article IV, Section 4.3(a) regarding qualifications for
the Board of Directors was amended to remove the requirement that one
Industry Director shall represent BOX Participants, because the
Exchange explained those provisions were no longer needed.\9\ The
Exchange also separately filed to dissolve the BOX Committee of the BX
Board of Directors.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to BX By-Law Article I(gg) a Public Director is a
Director who has no material business relationship with a broker or
dealer, the Corporation or its affiliates, or FINRA.
    \4\ Pursuant to BX By-Law Article I(bb) a Non-Industry Director
is a Director (excluding Staff Directors) who is (i) a Public
Director; (ii) an officer or employee of an issuer of securities
listed on the Exchange; or (iii) any other individual who would not
be an Industry Director.
    \5\ BOX was a facility of the Exchange under Section 39(a)(2) of
the Act. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49066 (January 13,
2004), 69 FR 2773 (January 20, 2004) (SR-BSE-2003-17); 49065
(January 13, 2004), 69 FR 2768 (January 20, 2004) (SR-BSE-2003-04)
(``BOXR Order''); and 49068 (January 13, 2004), 69 FR 2775 (January
20, 2004) (SR-BSE-2002-15). See also Release No. 58324; 73 FR 46936
(August 7, 2008) (File Nos. SR-BSE-2008-02; SR-BSE-2008-23; SR-BSE-
2008-25; SR-BSECC-2008-01) (``Order Approving the Acquisition of the
Boston Stock Exchange, Incorporated by The NASDAQ OMX Group,
Inc.'').
    \6\ The RSA specified, among other matters, that BX would
terminate its responsibility for fulfilling certain obligations and
cease performing certain regulatory functions as of the effective
date of June 1, 2012, or sooner if BOX satisfies all of the
conditions required for BOX to operate as a national securities
exchange (``the facility termination effective date'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67009 (May 17,
2012), 77 FR 30566 (May 23, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-036).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id. In addition, By-Law Article IV, Section 4.14, entitled
Committees Not Composed Solely of Directors, was amended to remove
the manner in which an Industry Director who is a representative of
BOX Participants is nominated to the Board as it is no longer
needed.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67102 (June 4,
2012), 77 FR 34107 (June 8, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-039). After The NASDAQ
OMX Group, Inc. acquired the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the
Exchange adopted resolutions to establish a committee of its Board
of Directors, referred to as the BOX Committee. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58324 (August 7, 2008); 73 FR 46936 (August
12, 2008) (File Nos. SR-BSE-2008-02; SR-BSE-2008-23; SR-BSE-2008-25;
SR-BSECC-2008-01) (``Order approving the Acquisition of the Boston
Stock Exchange, Incorporated by The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time the Exchange filed to remove BOX references from its
By-Laws and dissolve the BOX Committee, the Exchange inadvertently did
not amend its By-Laws to correct the number of Public Directors
required to be included in the calculation of Non-Industry Directors
for purposes of determining the number of Non-Industry Directors that
may serve on the Exchange board. Section 4.3 currently states, ``* * *
The number of non-Industry Directors, including at least three Public
Directors and at least one Director representative of issuers and
investors shall equal or exceed the sum of the number of Industry
Directors \11\ and Member Representative Directors.'' \12\ The number
of Public Directors was set at three directors to accommodate the
additional interests of the BOX Industry Director and the BOX Committee
\13\ that were also proposed to be part of the new Boston Stock
Exchange board at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Pursuant to BX By-Law Article I(t) an Industry Director is
a Director (excluding any two officers of the Corporation, selected
at the sole discretion of the Board, amongst those officers who may
be serving as Directors (the ``Staff Directors'')), who (i) is or
has served in the prior three years as an officer, director, or
employee of a broker or dealer, excluding an outside director or a
director not engaged in the day-to-day management of a broker or
dealer; (ii) is an officer, director (excluding an outside
director), or employee of an entity that owns more than ten percent
of the equity of a broker or dealer, and the broker or dealer
accounts for more than five percent of the gross revenues received
by the consolidated entity; (iii) owns more than five percent of the
equity securities of any broker or dealer, whose investments in
brokers or dealers exceed ten percent of his or her net worth, or
whose ownership interest otherwise permits him or her to be engaged
in the day-to-day management of a broker or dealer; (iv) provides
professional services to brokers or dealers, and such services
constitute twenty percent or more of the professional revenues
received by the Director or twenty percent or more of the gross
revenues received by the Director's firm or partnership; (v)
provides professional services to a director, officer, or employee
of a broker, dealer, or corporation that owns fifty percent or more
of the voting stock of a broker or dealer, and such services relate
to the director's, officer's, or employee's professional capacity
and constitute twenty percent or more of the professional revenues
received by the Director or twenty percent or more of the gross
revenues received by the Director's firm or partnership; or (vi) has
a consulting or employment relationship with or provides
professional services to the Corporation or any affiliate thereof or
to FINRA or has had any such relationship or provided any such
services at any time within the prior three years.
    \12\ Pursuant to BX By-Law Article I(x) a Member Representative
Director is a Director who has been elected by the stockholders
after having been nominated by the Member Nominating Committee or
voted upon by Exchange Members pursuant to these By-Laws (or elected
by the stockholders without such nomination or voting in the case of
the Member Representative Directors elected pursuant to Section
4.3(b)). A Member Representative Director may, but is not required
to be, an officer, director, employee, or agent of an Exchange
Member.
    \13\ An independent committee of the Exchange's Board of
Governors that reviewed BOX rule changes and certain other BOX-
related regulatory matters. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
34-58324 (August 7, 2008); 73 FR 46936 (August 12, 2008) (File Nos.
SR-BSE-2008-02; SR-BSE-2008-23; SR-BSE-2008-25; SR-BSECC-2008-01.
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67102 (June 4, 2012),
77 FR 34107 (June 8, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-039).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its By-Laws similar to the By-Laws
of NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') which requires the number of Non-
Industry Directors, including at least one Public Director and at least
one Director representative of issuers and investors shall equal or
exceed the sum of the number of Industry Directors and Member
Representative Directors * * *'' \14\ Also, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ'') requires the number of Non-Industry Directors, including
at least one Public Director and at least one issuer representative (or
if the Board consists of ten or more Directors, at least two issuer
representatives), shall equal or exceed the sum of the number of
Industry Directors and Member Representative Directors.\15\ The
amendment reflects the recent elimination of BOX representatives from
the Board and the reduction of the number of Public Directors from the
computation of qualifying Non-Industry Directors is consistent with the
removal of the BOX representatives from the Board. Today,
notwithstanding the increased number of Public Directors in the Non-
Industry director calculation, the Exchange meets the requirements of
the Non-Industry Director requirement in By-Law Article IV, Section
4.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Phlx By-Law Article III, Section 3-2(a).
    \15\ See NASDAQ By-Law Article III, Section 2(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's annual meeting will take place on or around the end
of May 2013. The Exchange anticipates utilizing the revised Non-
Industry Director calculation for the upcoming election of directors.
The Exchange does not believe that this calculation will impact the
board composition as twenty percent of the Directors will continue to
be Member Representative Directors as required in By-Law Article IV,
Section 4.3(a). Also, the Board will continue to have three Public
Directors serving on the Regulatory Oversight Committee as required by
By-Law Article IV, Section 4.13. The requirement that the number of
Non-Industry Directors equal or exceed the sum of Industry Directors
and Member Representative Directors will continue to be met, but only
one Public Director will be included in the calculation similar to Phlx
and NASDAQ.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ BX confirmed that BX will continue to have at least three
Public Directors on its Board of Directors, as required by its By-
Laws, because the BX Regulatory Oversight Committee must consist of
three Public Directors. See email from Angela Dunn, BX, to Adam
Moore, Special Counsel, and Dhawal Sharma, Attorney Advisor,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated March 29, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that its proposal to amend BX Article IV, Section 4.3
entitled ``Qualifications'' to correct the number of Public Directors
required to be included in the calculation of Non-Industry Directors
that are permitted to serve on the Exchange Board is consistent with
Section 6 of the Act,\17\ in general, and with Sections 6(b)(1) and
(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in particular, in that the proposal enable BX to
be so organized and to have the capacity to be able to carry out the
purposes of the Act and to comply with and enforce compliance by
members with provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, BX rules, and is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing,

settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The composition and selection of the BX Board of Directors will
continue to satisfy the requirement in Section 6(b)(3) of the Act \19\
that the rules of the Exchange provide for the fair representation of
members in the selection of directors and administration of the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that its By-Laws continue to assure
fair representation of the Exchange's members in the selection of its
directors and administration of its affairs and provide that, among
other things, one or more directors shall be representative of
investors and not be associated with the exchange, or with a broker or
dealer. Twenty percent of the Directors will continue to be Member
Representative Directors as required by BX Article IV, Section 4.3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of Public Directors that are required to be included in
the calculation of Non-Industry Directors will be the same as the
number required on the Phlx and NASDAQ Boards.\20\ The BX board
requirements today are otherwise similar to the requirements at Phlx
and NASDAQ. The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with
the previous filing which eliminated BOX related references from its
By-Laws.\21\ The number of Public Directors in the Non-Industry
Director calculation was directly related to the BX Board composition
with BOX representation and the elimination of the BOX representation
from the BX Board no longer necessitates the increased number of Public
Directors. The Exchange believes that amending the By-Laws to reflect a
similar board composition to NASDAQ and Phlx would continue to assure
fair representation of the Exchange's members in the selection of its
directors and administration of its affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Phlx By-Law Article III, Section 3-2(a) and NASDAQ By-
Law Article III, Section 2(a).
    \21\ See note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. This proposal will continue to provide for the
fair representation of members in the selection of directors and
administration of the Exchange. The amendment to amend By-Law Article
IV, Section 4.3 to modify the number of Public Directors in the Non-
Industry calculation is similar to by-laws on other exchanges.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Phlx By-Law Article III, Section 3-2(a) and NASDAQ By-
Law Article III, Section 2(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2013-029 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-BX-2013-029. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-BX-2013-029,
and should be submitted on or before April 29, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08099 Filed 4-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59245-59248]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0214]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 12 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective September 26, 2012. The exemptions
expire on September 26, 2014.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On August 6, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (77 FR 46793). That notice listed 12 applicants' case histories.
The 12 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 12 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 12
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including retinal scarring, telangiectasis, enucleation,
amblyopia, macular scarring, strabismus, loss of vision, and glaucoma.
In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Seven
of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or
have had them since childhood.
    The five individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a period of 7 to 32 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 12 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 52
years. In the past 3 years, two of the drivers were involved in
crashes, and two of the drivers were convicted of moving violations in
a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the August 6, 2012
notice (77 FR 46793).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345,

March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers
demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a
conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying
conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to
have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate
safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 12 applicants, two of the drivers were involved in crashes, and two
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 12 applicants listed in the notice of August
6, 2012 (77 FR 46793).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 12 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments were
considered and discussed below.
    The first individual, Timmeeka Bridges, was in favor of granting
the Federal vision exemption to all of the drivers listed in this
notice because they have already demonstrated their ability to operate
a CMV safely on state highways and a doctor's opinion has supported the
applicants.
    The second individual, Tyler Nieman, was not in support of granting
the Federal vision exemption to all the drivers listed because he feels
that that they cannot meet the requirements necessary to drive CMVs on
interstate highways and pose a danger on the roads.
    In response to the second comment, FMCSA's exemption process
supports drivers with vision deficiencies who seek to operate in
interstate commerce. In addition, FMSCA relies on the expert medical
opinion of the optometrist or ophthalmologist, who are required to
attest that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and the medical examiner, who is required to
attest that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49
CFR 391.41. Until the Agency issues a Final Rule, however, drivers with
vision deficiencies must continue to apply for exemptions from FMCSA,
and request renewals of such exemptions. FMCSA will grant exemptions
only to those applicants who meet the specific conditions and comply
with all the requirements of the exemption.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 12 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Michael J. Bechta (PA), Bryan G. Brockus (ID), Larry Clay NM),
Michael D. DeKorte (MI), Eric L. Gomersall (WI), Larry E. Johnsonbaugh,
Jr. (PA), Albert Lewis, (AL), John B. Middleton (OH), Ronald W. Patten
(ME), Kirk W. Scott (CT), Michael F. Sprouse (SC), and John G. Steedley
(GA) from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to
the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may

apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: September 19, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-23675 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52601-52602]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18385]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-255, OMB Control No. 3235-0305]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 13e-1

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

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously

approved collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 13e-1 (17 CFR 240.13e-1) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (U.S.C. 78 et seq.) makes it unlawful for an issuer who has
received notice that it is the subject of a tender offer made under
Section 14(d)(1) of the Exchange Act to purchase any of its equity
securities during the tender offer, unless it first files a statement
with the Commission containing information required by the rule. This
rule is in keeping with the Commission's statutory responsibility to
prescribe rules and regulations that are necessary for the protection
of investors. Public companies are the respondents. We estimate that it
takes approximately 10 burden hours per response to provide the
information required under Rule 13e-1 and that the information is filed
by approximately 10 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 10 hours
per response (2.5 hours) is prepared by the company for a total annual
reporting burden of 25 hours (2.5 hours per response x 10 responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by September 26, 2022 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: August 22, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-18385 Filed 8-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 91 (Friday, May 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 22151]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4303-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Nevada; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Nevada (FEMA-4303-DR), dated February 17, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective April 5, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, David Haas, of
FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this
disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Rosalyn L. Cole as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-09611 Filed 5-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: September 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 178)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52911-52914]
[DOCID:fr12se08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0091; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-311-AD;
Amendment 39-15666; AD 2008-18-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 747 airplanes. This AD requires modification of the refuel
valve control unit for the reserve fuel tanks. This AD also requires a
revision to the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate
airworthiness limitation (AWL) No. 28-AWL-20 or AWL No. 28-AWL-25, as
applicable. This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent lightning-induced
electrical energy from entering a reserve fuel tank through the refuel
valve, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss
of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective October 17, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 17,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD

docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sulmo Mariano, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6501; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5770). That NPRM proposed
to require modification of the refuel valve control unit for the
reserve fuel tanks. That NPRM also proposed to require a revision to
the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate airworthiness
limitation (AWL) No. 28-AWL-20 or AWL No. 28-AWL-25, as applicable.

Actions Since NPRM Was Issued

    On April 28, 2008, we issued AD 2008-10-07, amendment 39-15513 (73
FR 25977, May 8, 2008), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-100,
747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR,
and 747SP series airplanes. That AD requires revising the FAA-approved
maintenance program by incorporating new AWLs for fuel tank systems to
satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88'')
requirements. That AD also requires the initial inspection of certain
repetitive AWL inspections to phase in those inspections, and repair if
necessary. As an optional action, that AD also allows incorporating AWL
No. 28-AWL-20 into the FAA-approved maintenance program. Therefore, we
have added a new paragraph (i) to this AD, which states that
incorporating AWL No. 28-AWL-20 into the FAA-approved maintenance
program in accordance with paragraph (g) of AD 2008-10-07 terminates
the action required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, for the applicable
airplanes.
    On April 28, 2008, we issued AD 2008-10-06, amendment 39-15512 (73
FR 25990, May 8, 2008), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-400,
747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. That AD requires revising the
FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating new AWLs for fuel
tank systems to satisfy SFAR 88 requirements. That AD also requires the
initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase in
those inspections, and repair if necessary. As an optional action, that
AD also allows incorporating AWL No. 28-AWL-25 into the FAA-approved
maintenance program. Therefore, we have added a new paragraph (j) to
this AD, which states that incorporating AWL No. 28-AWL-25 into the
FAA-approved maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of
AD 2008-10-06 terminates the action required by paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD, for the applicable airplanes.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received from the four commenters.

Request To Allow Use of Future Revisions to the Service Bulletin

    Boeing and Japan Airlines (JAL) request that we revise paragraph
(f) of the NPRM to specify that the proposed modification may also be
done in accordance with any future approved revisions to Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-28A2291. As justification, Boeing states that the
service bulletin could be revised by the time we issue this AD. JAL
states that, during validation of the original issue of the service
bulletin, Boeing found minor discrepancies with the service bulletin,
which Boeing will correct in the next revision to the service bulletin.
    We disagree with revising paragraph (f) of this AD, since Boeing
has not issued a revision to the service bulletin. If the service
bulletin is revised after issuance of this AD, we might consider
approving the revised service bulletin as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC). Further, we have removed all references to the use
of a ``later revision'' of the applicable service information from
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD to be consistent with FAA
policies and Office of the Federal Register regulations. We may
consider approving the use of later revisions of the service
information as an AMOC with this AD, as provided by paragraph (k) of
this AD.

Request To Revise Paragraph (g)

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) states that the intent of paragraph
(g) of the NPRM is to maintain the design features introduced in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2291, dated
September 27, 2007, when the reserve tank fueling valve controller is
removed and replaced. KLM thinks that it is clearer if paragraph (g) of
the NPRM states that the critical design configuration control
limitations (CDCCLs) must be incorporated into the applicable
paragraphs of the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) to maintain these
design features.
    We infer that KLM requests that we revise paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD as proposed above. We disagree because it is
insufficient to only update the AMM with CDCCL notes. CDCCLs are
airworthiness limitations. This AD requires revising an operator's FAA-
approved maintenance program to include the new CDCCL, but it does not
require specific changes to the AMM. We have not changed this AD in
this regard.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    Lufthansa requests that we extend the compliance time from 60
months to 72 months for accomplishing the proposed modification.
Lufthansa states that this extension will allow operators to implement
the modification at the next maintenance layover.
    We do not agree with Lufthansa's request to extend the compliance
time. The operator provides no technical justification for revising the
compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this
AD, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe
condition and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required
modification on the 747 fleet in a timely manner. Also, the
modification requires less than 7 work hours, which may be done as
separate work packages during regular maintenance. However, according
to the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD, we may approve requests
to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that prove
that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of
safety. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Other Change Made to This AD

    For standardization purposes, we have added a new paragraph (h) to
this AD to specify that no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless they
are approved as an AMOC. Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is
intended to ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations
changes are treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued
with the original type certificate.

Conclusion

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects about 300 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an
average labor rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with
this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Action                  Work hours           Parts       Cost per product          Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification..................  Up to 7..........  Up to $286......  Up to $846......  Up to $253,800.
Maintenance program revision..  1................  None............  $80.............  $24,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-18-09 Boeing: Amendment 39-15666. Docket No. FAA-2008-0091;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-311-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 17,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B
SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any
category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2291, dated September 27, 2007.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (k) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent lightning-induced
electrical energy from entering a reserve fuel tank through the
refuel valve, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and
consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Modification

    (f) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the refuel valve control unit for the reserve fuel tanks, by
accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2291, dated September 27, 2007.

Maintenance Program Revision

    (g) Concurrently with accomplishing the modification required by
paragraph (f) of this AD, revise the FAA-approved maintenance
program by incorporating the information specified in paragraph
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-
200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes:
Incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-20 of Section D of the Boeing 747-100/
200/300/SP Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-13747-CMR, Revision January
2007, into the FAA-approved maintenance program.
    (2) For Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes:
Incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-25 of Subsection D of the Boeing 747-400
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D621U400-9, Section 9,
Revision 24, dated June 2006, into the FAA-approved maintenance
program.

No Alternative Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations
(CDCCLs)

    (h) After accomplishing the applicable action specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless
the CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

Terminating Action for Maintenance Program Revision

    (i) For Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-
200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes:
Incorporating AWL No. 28-AWL-20 into the FAA-approved maintenance
program in accordance with paragraph (g) of AD 2008-10-07, amendment
39-15513, terminates the action required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD.
    (j) For Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes:
Incorporating AWL No. 28-AWL-25 into the FAA-approved maintenance
program in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of AD 2008-10-06,
amendment 39-15512, terminates the action required by paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, ATTN: Sulmo Mariano,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use the service information contained in Table 1 of
this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information that is
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

                                   Table 1--Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Service information                         Revision                               Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-      Original...........................  September 27, 2007.
 28A2291.
Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP               January 2007.......................  January 2007.
 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
 Certification Maintenance
 Requirements (CMRs), D6-13747-CMR.
Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning     24.................................  June 2006.
 Data (MPD) Document, D621U400-9,
 Section 9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 25, 2008.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-20364 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P