[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46795-46797]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0159]

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 10 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 August 6, 2012. The exemptions
expire on August 6, 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 June 18, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (77 FR 36336). That notice listed 10 applicants' case histories.
The 10 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 10 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 10
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 complete loss of vision, enucleation, amblyopia,
prosthesis, and optic atrophy. In most cases, their eye conditions were
not recently developed. Eight of the applicants were either born with
their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The
individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had
it for a period of 12 to 40 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 10 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 4 to 41
years. In the past 3 years, one of the drivers was involved in a crash,
and none of the drivers was convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the June 18, 2012,
notice (77 FR 36336).

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 10 applicants, one of the drivers was involved in a crash, and none
was 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 10 applicants listed in the notice of June
18, 2012 (77 FR 36336).
    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 10 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 no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 10 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Donald S. Dickerson (WV), Michael J. Ernst (NE), Derek L.
Jones, Sr. (GA), Richard L. Miller (IN), James R. Morgan (MI), William
C. Sanders (TN), Dan P. Till (TX), Richard D. Tucker II (NC), Jay A.
Turner (OH), and Jack L. Woolever (MO) 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: July 30, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-19124 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35638-35641]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15807]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0250; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-158-AD;
Amendment 39-18976; AD 2017-15-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(Embraer)

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135ER, -
135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP,
and -145EP airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of airplanes
with modified gust lock levers that prevented the thrust lever's full
excursion, thus limiting the engine power. This AD requires replacing a
certain gust lock lever. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 5, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 5,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical
Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170--Putim--
12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos Campos--SP--Brasil; telephone +55 12
3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.flyembraer.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0250.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0250; 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 street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket 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: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Empresa Brasileira de
Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -
145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2017 (82 FR 18590)
(``the NPRM'').
    The Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC),
which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian
Airworthiness Directive 2016-07-01, dated July 18, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Empresa
Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -
135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    ANAC was informed about occurrences in which airplanes that
incorporated SB 145-27-0115, which changes the Gust Lock lever
format, managed to takeoff, or performed [rejected take-offs] RTOs,
in such a configuration that the Gust Lock lever prevented the
thrust levers full excursion, thus limiting the engine power to
about 70% of the nominal takeoff power. Analyses and simulations
conducted by the manufacturer confirmed this as a possible scenario
in case some verification procedures prior to and during takeoff,
for whatever reason, are not properly performed. After evaluation,
the conclusion was that the incorporation of SB 145-27-0115 would
take away an important tactile cue regarding the thrust levers
position, which, in a timely manner, would alert the crew of an
improper takeoff configuration. During takeoffs, or attempts
thereof, in such condition, the airplane would have a reduced
performance, which would increase the required takeoff distance or
the RTO distance, and reduce the airplane capacity to clear
obstacles.
    Since this condition may occur in other airplanes of the same
type and affects flight safety, a corrective action is required.
Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this
[Brazilian] AD in the indicated time limit.

Required actions include replacing a certain gust lock lever. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0250.

Comments

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

Request To Revise the Compliance Time

    Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) requested that
the compliance time in the NPRM be revised. ALPA stated that since the
Embraer service information was published 19 months prior, operators
have been provided ample time to perform inspections to determine
whether a corrective action is required. ALPA commented that,
therefore, it is in partial support of the NPRM and suggested an
inspection compliance time of 12 months or 2,500 flight hours after the
effective date of the AD, and a repair compliance time of 24 months or
5,000 hours after the effective date of the AD.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. In developing an
appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications,
parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely
accomplishment of inspecting and replacing the gust lock lever.
Further, we arrived at the proposed compliance time with operator and
manufacturer concurrence. Since the actions specified in the Brazilian
AD and service information are not mandatory in the U.S., the FAA must
issue a final rule to mandate those actions in order to address the
identified unsafe condition. In consideration of all of these factors,
we determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an
appropriate time in which the gust lock lever can be inspected and
replaced in a timely manner within the fleet, while still maintaining
an adequate level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this
regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We have reviewed Embraer Service Bulletin 145-27-0126, dated
October 6, 2015. This service information describes procedures for
replacement of a certain gust lock lever for one with an alternative
format.
    We have also reviewed Embraer Service Bulletin 145-27-0115,
Revision 03, dated October 5, 2015. This service information describes
modification procedures involving replacement of the gust lock lever
with a new gust lock lever enabling both engine thrust levers to be
advanced at the same angle as that of the electromechanical gust lock
lever.
    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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 668 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.........................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour               $0             $85         $56,780
                                      = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this
replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement................................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85...          $6,315          $6,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We determined that 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 the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2017-15-16 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer):
Amendment 39-18976; FAA-2017-0250; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-
158-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 5, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(Embraer) Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -
145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes, certificated in
any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of airplanes with modified gust
lock levers that performed take-offs or rejected take-offs (RTOs),
in such a configuration that the gust lock lever prevented the
thrust lever's full excursion, thus limiting the engine power to
about 70% of the nominal take-off power. We are issuing this AD to
prevent incorrect configuration of the gust lock lever, which could
reduce the airplane's performance during take-offs or attempted
take-offs, increase the required take-off distance or the RTO
distance, and reduce the airplane's capacity to clear obstacles.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    Within 5,000 flight hours or 24 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Check the airplane maintenance
records to determine whether the actions specified in Embraer
Service Bulletin 145-27-0115 have been done. If the records review
is inconclusive, inspect the engine control box assembly against the
Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 145-27-0115,
Revision 03, dated October 5, 2015, to determine whether the actions
specified in Embraer Service Bulletin 145-27-0115 have been done.

(h) Corrective Action

    If the check or inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD
indicates that the actions in Embraer Service Bulletin 145-27-0115
have been done: Within 5,000 flight hours or 24 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the gust
lock lever, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Embraer Service Bulletin 145-27-0126, dated October 6, 2015.

(i) Acceptable Alternative

    Modification of the airplane to a pre-modification condition
(configuration before incorporating Embraer Service Bulletin 145-27-
0115), within the compliance times specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC);
or ANAC's authorized Designee, is acceptable for compliance with
paragraph (h) of this AD.

(j) Prohibited Modification

    As of the effective date of this AD, do not accomplish the
actions specified in Embraer Service Bulletin 145-27-0115 on any
airplane.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, 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 International
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or ANAC; or
ANAC's authorized Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the
approval must include the Designee's authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2016-07-01, dated July 18,
2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0250.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Todd Thompson,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 425-
227-1149.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Embraer Service Bulletin 145-27-0115, Revision 03, dated
October 5, 2015.
    (ii) Embraer Service Bulletin 145-27-0126, dated October 6,
2015.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical
Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170--
Putim--12227--901 S[atilde]o Jose dos Campos--SP--Brasil; telephone
+55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.flyembraer.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 19, 2017.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-15807 Filed 7-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 112 (Monday, June 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 38117]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12638]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 15, 2023.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: June 8, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12638 Filed 6-8-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37737-37738]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the Northeast Corridor Between
Washington, DC, New York, NY, and Boston, MA

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this Notice of Intent (Notice) to advise the
public of the preparation of a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) to evaluate potential passenger rail improvements between
Washington, DC, New York City, and Boston, MA. FRA is leading the
planning and environmental evaluation of the Northeast Corridor (NEC),
an effort known as NEC FUTURE, in close coordination with the involved
states, Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory
Commission (NEC Commission), Amtrak and other stakeholders. The purpose
of the NEC FUTURE program is to define current and future markets for
improved rail service and capacity on the NEC, develop an integrated
passenger rail transportation solution to incrementally meet those
needs, and create a regional planning framework to engage stakeholders
throughout the region in the development of the program.
    NEC FUTURE is being advanced consistent with the federal High-Speed
Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program and includes the development
of a Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan (PRCIP). A PRCIP provides
the data necessary to support an FRA decision to fund and implement
major investments in a passenger rail corridor. A PRCIP is comprised of
two components: A Tier 1 EIS and a Service Development Plan (SDP). The
Tier 1 EIS will be developed in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 and the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 40 CFR part 1500 et seq.,
and will address documentation on a broad corridor level. The SDP
articulates the overall scope, alternatives, approach and business case
for proposed service and improvements.
    As part of the Tier 1 EIS, FRA will evaluate various passenger rail
alternatives: A No Action Alternative, consisting of already planned
improvements to the corridor, and Build Alternatives consisting of a
full array of passenger rail alternatives which could range from
operational and service enhancements to new physical improvements. FRA
will consider the type, location and need for ancillary facilities for
each alternative. The primary passenger rail route is the existing NEC
passenger rail spine and its connecting corridors; however, in some
areas, FRA may consider alternatives off of the existing NEC.
    FRA is issuing this Notice to alert the public and agencies about
the preparation of the Tier 1 EIS and associated SDP. To ensure that
all significant issues are identified and considered, all interested
parties are invited to comment on the proposed scope of environmental
review, project purpose and need, alternatives to be considered,
environmental effects to be considered and evaluated, and methodologies
to be used for evaluating effects.

DATES: Submit comments by Friday, September 14, 2012. See the NEC
FUTURE Web site (www.necfuture.com) for information on the scoping
meeting dates.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are encouraged to comment on-line at the
NEC FUTURE Web site (www.necfuture.com), via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or in person at the scoping meetings. For Further
Information or Special Assistance Contact: Rebecca Reyes-Alicea, USDOT,
Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Policy &
Development, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or; through the NEC FUTURE Web site
(www.necfuture.com).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA is preparing a Tier 1 EIS and SDP for
the NEC FUTURE program. Together the EIS and SDP comprise a PRCIP that
will define a comprehensive and integrated passenger rail network in
the Northeast region, looking at a range of service types and
infrastructure needs, including plans for public investment in projects
that contribute towards efficient service and increased capacity for
intercity and high-speed passenger rail and freight and commuter rail
service. The PRCIP will provide the economic, financial, transportation
and environmental analyses necessary to support an investment in
improved rail service as a core component of a more integrated,
efficient, safer, and higher-capacity Northeast regional transportation
network.
    The FRA will use a tiered environmental review process for
complying with NEPA, as per the CEQ regulations, 40 CFR 1508.28, and in
accordance with FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts,
64 FR 28454 (FRA Environmental Procedures). The Tier 1 EIS will also
address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, 36 CFR Part 800, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department
of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. 303, and other applicable
Federal and state laws and regulations. The outcome of the Tier 1 EIS
will be to identify markets to be served, service(s), general alignment
and station locations.
    The NEC FUTURE program is intended to develop a rail transportation
investment program to support the Northeast region's economic
competitiveness and growth potential

with energy-efficient and sustainable transportation services. For
purposes of defining and analyzing transportation alternatives for NEC
FUTURE, the study area has been broadly defined to encompass the region
served by the NEC, plus those areas that can be reached from the NEC
directly by train or via a single transfer to connecting corridors
(e.g., the Empire Corridor in New York). The study area may be refined
as the NEC FUTURE program progresses and off-corridor alternatives are
identified.

Purpose and Need

    The Northeast region is served by an extensive intermodal passenger
and freight transportation system of highways, airports, ports,
intercity, commuter and freight rail, and public transit systems.
However, that transportation system lacks sufficient capacity or
redundancy to support local and inter-regional mobility needs,
resulting in major congestion and delays. Many components of the system
are in a state of disrepair or, worse, have reached the point of
obsolescence.
    The need for the project is founded in the importance of mobility
to the continued economic vitality of the Northeast region, coupled
with projected population, economic and travel demand growth. Without
investment, the limitations of the region's transportation network will
constrain the growth, competitiveness and economic development of the
region. The focus of NEC FUTURE is the rail network, an important
component of the transportation network, and its role in providing and
improving regional mobility.

Alternatives To Be Considered

    The Tier 1 EIS will evaluate preliminary alternatives including a
No Action Alternative and various Build Alternatives. The No Action
Alternative will serve as a baseline for comparison of all
alternatives. The No Action Alternative will draw upon State
Transportation Improvement Programs and existing intercity passenger,
commuter and freight rail plans as well as planned highway and air
network improvements. The Tier 1 EIS will develop and evaluate a range
of reasonable Build Alternatives. The Build Alternatives will be
developed at a corridor level and will address travel markets,
services, operations, general alignments and station locations. Build
Alternatives could include physical improvements to the NEC spine to
increase capacity, enhance safety, modernize the infrastructure,
improve reliability and reduce trip time. Other alternatives could also
be service- or operation-related that provide rail service to new
markets or change existing patterns of service. In addition, there may
be Build Alternatives off the existing NEC spine or its connecting
corridors.

Possible Effects

    FRA will evaluate direct, indirect and cumulative changes to the
social, economic, and physical environment, including land use and
socioeconomic conditions, ecological resources, water resources,
cultural resources, hazardous contamination, transportation, air
quality, noise and vibration at a level commensurate with a Tier 1 EIS.
Analysis will be consistent with NEPA, CEQ regulations, Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act,
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, FRA Environmental Procedures,
applicable state environmental regulations, and Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, along with other applicable
Federal and State regulations.

Scoping Process

    The FRA is inviting comments and suggestions from all interested
parties regarding the scope of the Tier 1 EIS to ensure that all uses
are addressed related to this proposal and that any significant impacts
are identified. Please direct comments or questions concerning the
proposed action and the Tier 1 EIS to the FRA at the above address. FRA
will send letters describing the proposed action and soliciting
comments to the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, Native
American tribes and to private organizations that might have previously
expressed or that are known to have an interest in this proposal.
    FRA is leading the outreach activities with agency and public
meetings occurring in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New
York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and the District of
Columbia. The meetings and other public involvement initiatives,
including newsletters and outreach, will be held throughout the course
of this study. Dates, times and locations for the scoping meetings and
other opportunities for public participation will be announced on the
NEC FUTURE Web site (www.necfuture.com) and through mailings, notices,
advertisements and press releases. In addition, the scoping meeting
presentation will be available on the NEC FUTURE Web site along with a
scoping package that can also be obtained upon request by contacting
Rebecca Reyes-Alicea at the mailing address above or electronically at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments will be accepted on the scoping of the EIS in meetings,
through the NEC FUTURE Web site (www.necfuture.com) and by submitting
written comments to Rebecca Reyes-Alicea at the address above. The
formal comment period for scoping will be open from the date of this
Notice until Friday, September 14, 2012.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2012.
John Tunna,
Director of the Office of Research and Development, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-15241 Filed 6-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8240-8241]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02827]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0036; FRL-10005-25-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Nebraska; Approval of State Implementation
Plan and Operating Permits Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of the removal of Nebraska Administrative Code title 129,
chapter 8, section 007.06 from Nebraska's State Implementation Plan
(SIP) and title V provisions. Nebraska submitted this revision to the
EPA on July 19, 2019. Title 129, chapter 8 contains Nebraska's
operating permit program and is approved under title V and part 52. The
EPA is proposing approval because the removal of the language makes the
rule consistent with federal regulations and strengthens the SIP and
the title V program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2020-0036 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-
0036, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve the removal of title 129, chapter
8, section 007.06 from the Nebraska Administrative Code of the
previously approved SIP. Section 007.06 stated that permits used under
title 129 chapter 8 superseded all other previously issued operating or
construction permits. This section which was previously approved in
Nebraska's SIP, is inconsistent with the EPA's interpretation of the
title V program. Title V permits include all SIP-approved permit terms,
but do not supersede, void, replace or otherwise eliminate their legal
existence and enforceability. This proposed removal of this provision
confirms that construction permits are not vacated when an operating
permit is issued. Removal of this provision is appropriate, consistent
with Federal regulations and strengthens both the title V program and
the SIP. The EPA is proposing approval of this revision.

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from February 28,
2019 to April 3, 2019 and received one comment from EPA on March 5,
2019, supporting the revision. In addition, as explained above the
revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), including section 110 and implementing regulations.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the removal of Chapter 129, title 8,
section 007.06 from the Nebraska title V program and SIP because it is
inconsistent with EPA's interpretation of the title V program.
    We are processing this as a proposed action because we are
soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will
occur after consideration of any comments.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the Nebraska Regulation described in the
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory

action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 6, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR parts 52 and 70 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart--CC Nebraska

0
2. In Sec.  52.1420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``129-8'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1420   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Nebraska Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
       Nebraska citation                  Title            effective   EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                              date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                STATE OF NEBRASKA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Department of Environmental Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Title 129--Nebraska Air Quality Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
129-8..........................  Operating Permit           6/24/2019  [Date of           ......................
                                  Content.                              publication of
                                                                        the final rule
                                                                        in the Federal
                                                                        Register],
                                                                        [Federal
                                                                        Register
                                                                        citation of the
                                                                        final rule].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS

0
3. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph (q) under
``Nebraska; City of Omaha; Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department''
to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Nebraska; City of Omaha; Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department

* * * * *
    (q) The Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy submitted
revisions to NDEQ Title 129 Chapter 8 ``Operating Permit Content''
on July 19, 2019. The state effective date is June 24, 2019. The
proposed revision effective date is [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-02827 Filed 2-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 71399]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25323]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2018-0006]

Petition for Extension of Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on October 18, 2022, Northern
Plains Railroad (NPR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR 229.47, Emergency brake valve. The relevant FRA Docket Number is
FRA-2018-0006.
    Specifically, NPR requests to extend its existing relief from the
requirement that an emergency brake pipe valve be installed adjacent to
the rear door of a locomotive for five EMD SD60F locomotives (Numbers
5513, 5517, 5518, 5525, and 5535). The five locomotives are of the same
car body type and are not equipped with an emergency brake valve at the
rear exit door. Each of the units have rear walkways and switch style
steps, thus allowing the engineer to see the person riding on the back
and are equipped with radio communication. These units will be used in
road service and will be paired together. In support of its request,
NPR states that it has ``no history of vandalism.''
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by January 23, 2023 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic
form of any written communications and comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to
better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-25323 Filed 11-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20506-20509]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8919]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 240

[Release No. 34-64251]

Technical Amendment to Rule 19b-4: Filings With Respect to
Proposed Rule Changes by Self-Regulatory Organizations

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
amending Rule 19b-4(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Exchange Act'') so that references to ``business day'' in Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder refer to a day
other than a Saturday, Sunday, Federal holiday, a day that the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management (``OPM'') has announced that Federal
agencies in the Washington, DC area are closed to the public, a day on
which the Commission is subject to a Federal government shutdown in the
event of a lapse in appropriations, or a day on which the Commission's
Washington, DC office is otherwise not open for regular business.

DATES: Effective Date: April 13, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Holley III, Assistant
Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Division of Trading and Markets,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Filing of SRO Proposed Rule Changes

A. Background

    Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act \1\ requires self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs''), including national securities exchanges,
registered securities associations, registered clearing agencies, and
the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board,\2\ to file with the
Commission any proposed rule change,\3\

which must be submitted on Form 19b-4 \4\ in accordance with the
General Instructions thereto. Once a proposed rule change has been
filed, the Commission is required to publish it in the Federal Register
to provide an opportunity for public comment.\5\ A proposed rule change
generally may not take effect unless it is either approved by the
Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act \6\ or is
designated by the SRO to become effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act.\7\ The Commission's Division
of Trading and Markets, on behalf of the Commission, is responsible for
the day-to-day review of SRO proposed rule changes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ See Section 3(a)(26) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(26) (defining the term ``self-regulatory organization'' to
mean any national securities exchange, registered securities
association, registered clearing agency, and, for purposes of
Section 19(b) and other limited purposes, the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board).
    \3\ Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act defines a ``proposed
rule change'' as ``any proposed rule, or any proposed change in,
addition to, or deletion from the rules of'' an SRO. 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(1). Section 3(a)(27) of the Exchange Act defines ``rules'' to
include ``the constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and
rules, or instruments corresponding to the foregoing * * * and such
of the stated policies, practices, and interpretations of such
exchange, association, or clearing agency as the Commission, by
rule, may determine to be necessary or appropriate in the public
interest or for the protection of investors to be deemed to be rules
of such exchange, association, or clearing agency.'' 15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(27). Rule 19b-4(b) under the Exchange Act defines ``stated
policy, practice, or interpretation'' to mean, in part, ``[a]ny
material aspect of the operation of the facilities of the self-
regulatory organization'' or ``[a]ny statement made generally
available'' that ``establishes or changes any standard, limit, or
guideline'' with respect to the ``rights, obligations, or
privileges'' of persons or the ``meaning, administration, or
enforcement of an existing rule.'' 17 CFR 240.19b-4(b).
    \4\ 17 CFR 249.819.
    \5\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). The SRO is required to prepare the
notice of its proposed rule change on Exhibit 1 of Form 19b-4 that
the Commission then publishes in the Federal Register.
    \6\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). However, as provided in Section
19(b)(2)(D) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(D), a proposed
rule change may be ``deemed to have been approved by the
Commission'' if the Commission fails to take action on a proposal
that is subject to Commission approval within the statutory time
frames specified in Section 19(b)(2).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ See 17 CFR 200.30-3 (Delegation of authority to Director of
the Division of Trading and Markets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There may be days, in addition to Saturday, Sunday and Federal
holidays, on which the Commission's Washington, DC offices are not open
for regular business. For example, a lapse in appropriations or an
announcement by OPM that Federal agencies are closed for business may
cause the Commission's Washington DC offices to not be open for regular
business. To make clear that ``business day'' does not include those
days, the Commission is hereby adopting a technical amendment to Rule
19b-4 to state what constitute ``business days'' for purposes of
Section 19(b) under the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 concerning SRO
proposed rule changes.

B. References to ``Business Days'' in Section 19 and Rule 19b-4

    Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act provides the time frames within
which the Commission must act in connection with reviewing and
processing SRO proposed rule changes. Some time frames are tied to
calendar days; others are tied to business days.
    In particular, Section 19(b)(10)(B) of the Exchange Act provides
that the Commission may, within seven business days after receipt of a
filing, reject as improperly filed a filing that does not comply with
the rules of the Commission relating to the required form of a proposed
rule change.\9\ That provision currently is the only reference to
``business day'' contained in Section 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(10)(B). This period may be extended to 21
calendar days if, not later than 7 business days after the date of
receipt by the Commission, the Commission notifies the SRO that it
needs additional time due to the Commission's determination that the
proposed rule change is unusually lengthy, complex, or raises novel
regulatory issues. If it is not rejected, Section 19(b)(10)(A) of
the Exchange Act provides that the date of filing of a proposed rule
change is the ``date on which the Commission receives the proposed
rule change.'' 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(10)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    References to ``business days'' are also found in Rule 19b-4 under
the Exchange Act. For example, subparagraph (l) provides a two business
day deadline by which an SRO must post a proposed rule change on its
Web site after filing it with the Commission, and subparagraph (m)
provides a two business day deadline by which an SRO must update its
Web site to reflect changes to the text of its rules.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4(l) and (m), respectively. An SRO is
required to post and maintain a complete version of its rules on its
Web site. See 17 CFR 240.19b-4(m)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other references to business days, including in paragraphs (f)(6)
and (k) of Rule 19b-4, refer to the filing by the SRO of materials with
the Commission, which the Commission must then review in the normal
course of its oversight of the SRO rule change process. Specifically,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) allows an SRO to designate certain proposed rule
changes as effective upon filing if, among other things, the SRO
provides written notice of its intent to file, along with a brief
description and proposed rule text (a ``prefiling''), to the Commission
at least five business days prior to filing. In addition, Rule 19b-4(k)
specifies when a proposed rule change is received by the Commission and
provides that if the conditions of Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 are
satisfied, a proposed rule change will be received by and accepted as
filed on a business day if it is filed on or before 5:30 p.m. (Eastern
time).\11\ Any filing submitted after 5:30 p.m. on a business day will
be accepted by the Commission but will have as its date of filing the
next business day.\12\ Rule 19b-4 does not, however, define what
constitutes a ``business day.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(k).
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Commission's Washington DC headquarters is routinely
closed for business on weekends (Saturdays and Sundays) and designated
Federal holidays,\13\ the Commission's Washington DC headquarters also
may be closed for other reasons. For example, Federal agencies may be
closed in various situations, including, but not limited to, adverse
weather, the observance of special events in the District of Columbia
(including, but not limited to, presidential inaugurations or funeral
observances), or any other conditions or events that cause Federal
agencies to not open for regular business. These types of closings may
be non-agency specific and would generally affect most Federal agencies
in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. For these types of closings,
the OPM disseminates the Federal government's operating status for the
Washington, DC area as ``CLOSED'' and publishes that operating status
on its Web site at http://www.opm.gov.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 104 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.104 (Business Hours).
    \14\ These days differ from days when OPM disseminates an
``OPEN'' status, regardless of whether unscheduled leave or telework
options are available or whether delayed arrival or early departure
is in effect. See OPM's Washington, DC, Area Dismissal and Closure
Procedures, available at: http://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/dismissal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission could be subject to a Federal
government-wide shutdown in the event of a lapse in Congressional
appropriations resulting in the temporary cessation of non-essential
Federal government operations. Other circumstances may uniquely and
specifically affect the Commission's Washington, DC headquarters,
causing the Commission to not be open for regular business at a time
when other Federal agencies in the Washington, DC metropolitan area may
or may not be open for regular business. Examples of these kinds of
circumstances might include a disturbance at or problems with the
Commission's headquarters facilities that cause it to close temporarily
for regular business.\15\

II. Amendment to Rule 19b-4(a)

    The Commission is adding new subparagraph (2) to Rule 19b-4(a) to
specify that references to ``business days'' in Section 19 of the
Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 mean any day other than a Saturday, Sunday,
Federal holiday, a day that OPM has announced that Federal agencies in
the Washington,

DC area are closed to the public, a day on which the Commission is
subject to a Federal government shutdown in the event of a lapse in
appropriations, or a day on which the Commission's Washington, DC
office is otherwise not open for regular business.\16\ The purpose of
the amendment is to clarify the treatment of days where the Commission
is not open and how such days impact an SRO's proposed rule change
submitted pursuant to Rule 19b-4 and an SRO's obligation to post on its
Web site a proposed rule change that has been filed with the
Commission, as well as determining the ``business days'' upon which the
five day prefiling and seven day rejection periods are measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission is also redesignating paragraph (a) of Rule
19b-4 as paragraph (a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new text in Rule 19b-4(a)(2) applies to several aspects of the
Commission's operations concerning the processing of SRO proposed rule
change filings. First, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(k), proposed rule filings
submitted electronically by SROs via its Electronic Form 19b-4 Filing
System (``EFFS'') on a day other than a business day of the Commission
will be accepted by the Commission, but will have as their date of
filing the next business day, as defined. For example, if the
Commission is subject to a Federal government shutdown in the event of
a lapse in appropriations from a Monday through a Friday, and resumes
operations the following Monday, an SRO proposed rule change that was
submitted electronically during the week the Federal government was
shut down would, for purposes of Section 19(b) and Rule 19b-4, receive
a filing date of the Monday the Federal government resumes operations.
    In the event of a day that the Office of Personnel Management has
announced that Federal agencies in the Washington, DC area are closed
to the public, a government shutdown in the event of a lapse in
appropriations, or other circumstances that cause the Commission to not
be open for regular business, the Commission would expect, to the
extent feasible, to disseminate through EFFS a general notification
viewable by all SROs reflecting that any proposed rule changes that an
SRO submits through EFFS on such day or days will not be ``filed''
until the Commission is open for regular business.
    Further, under Rule 19b-4(f)(6), an SRO is required to submit a
prefiling at least five business days prior to filing a full 19b-
4(f)(6) proposed rule change with the Commission. Under new paragraph
(a)(2) to Rule 19b-4, for purposes of counting the five business day
review period, any day that is not a business day of the Commission is
not counted. For example, if an SRO submits a prefiling before 5:30
p.m. on Monday, February 1, and OPM announces that Federal agencies in
the Washington, DC area, including the Commission, are closed due to
inclement weather on Tuesday, February 2 and Wednesday, February 3, and
the Commission subsequently reopens on Thursday, February 4, then
February 2 and 3 would not be counted as ``business days'' that have
elapsed for purposes of the five day prefiling period specified in Rule
19b-4(f)(6).
    Separately, for purposes of the two business day period within
which an SRO must post a proposed rule change on its Web site after
filing it with the Commission, or the two business day period within
which an SRO must update its Web site to reflect changes to the text of
its rules, any non-business day of the Commission is not counted.\17\
For example, if an SRO files a proposed rule change with the Commission
on April 1 (a business day) on or before 5:30 p.m., and the Commission
subsequently is not open for regular business on April 2 and 3, then
April 2 and 3 would not be counted as ``business days'' that have
elapsed for purposes of the Web site posting requirement in Rule 19b-
4(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4(l) and (m), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, under Section 19(b)(10)(B) of the Exchange Act, the
Commission generally has seven business days after the date of receipt
of a filing to reject as improperly filed a filing that does not comply
with the rules of the Commission relating to the required form of a
proposed rule change.\18\ Under new paragraph (a)(2) to Rule 19b-4, for
purposes of counting the seven business day Commission review period,
any non-business day of the Commission is not counted. For example, if
the Commission is not open for regular business on February 1 and 2,
but the Commission reopens on February 3, and an SRO had submitted a
proposed rule change filing on February 1, February 1 and 2 would not
be counted as ``business days'' that have elapsed for purposes of the
seven day period provided under Section 19(b)(10)(B) because those days
would not be business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment to Rule 19b-4(a)(2) is limited solely to Section
19(b) under the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder concerning SRO
proposed rule changes. By excluding as business days those days on
which the Commission is not open for regular business, and therefore
lacks personnel to review proposed rule changes, the amendment
facilitates the statutory purposes and statutory requirements for a
full and adequate review. Without the rule change, an SRO's proposal
might go into effect (e.g., in the case of an immediately effective
filing submitted pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act)
in the absence of Commission review, publication in the Federal
Register, or an opportunity for public comment, all of which are
contemplated by the Exchange Act. Accordingly, the amendment is
intended to support the statutory framework in which the Commission
reviews and publishes for public comment all SRO proposed rule changes
to help ensure that SROs carry out the purposes of the Exchange
Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For example, national securities exchanges are subject to
Section 6 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of the SRO be designed to ``prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade * * * [and] to protect investors and
the public interest'' and that they not be designed to ``permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.'' 15 U.S.C. 78f (b)(5). In reviewing an SRO's proposed rule
change, Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(2)(C), provides the standards for Commission approval of an
SRO's proposed rule change, which direct the Commission to consider
whether the proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to the SRO. For
immediately effective filings, the Commission is authorized to
suspend the proposal ``if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Exchange Act].'' 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Accordingly,
Commission review of SRO proposed rule changes helps ensure that SRO
proposed rule changes are consistent with the Exchange Act and the
rules thereunder that are applicable to the SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Certain Findings

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''), notice of
proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency, for good cause,
finds ``that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' \20\ The Commission
is making a technical amendment to Rule 19b-4 to provide that
references to ``business days'' in Section 19 of the Exchange Act and
Rule 19b-4 mean any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, Federal holiday,
a day that the Office of Personnel Management has announced that
Federal agencies in the Washington, DC area are closed to the public, a
day on which the Commission is subject to a Federal government shutdown
in the

event of a lapse in appropriations, or a day on which the Commission's
Washington, DC office is otherwise closed for regular business due to
other circumstances. The Commission finds that because the amendment is
technical in nature and pertains to the Commission's organization,
procedure or practice, publishing the amendment for comment is
unnecessary.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
    \21\ For similar reasons, the amendment does not require
analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') or analysis
of major rule status under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2) (for purposes of RFA analysis, the
term ``rule'' means any rule for which the agency publishes a
general notice of proposed rulemaking); and 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C) (for
purposes of Congressional review of agency rulemaking, the term
``rule'' does not include any rule of agency organization, procedure
or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The APA also requires publication of a rule at least 30 days before
its effective date unless the agency finds otherwise for good
cause.\22\ For the same reasons described above with respect to notice
and the opportunity for comment, the Commission finds good cause for
this technical amendment to take effect immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Consideration of Burden on Competition, and Promotion of
Efficiency, Competition and Capital Formation

    Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act,\23\ provides that whenever the
Commission is engaged in rulemaking and is required to consider or
determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, the Commission shall consider, in addition to the protection
of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires
the Commission, in adopting rules under the Exchange Act, to consider
the competitive effects of such rules, if any, and not to adopt a rule
that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate
in the furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the amendment to Exchange Act Rule 19b-4 is technical in
nature, and does not impose any additional requirements beyond those
already required, we do not anticipate that the amendment would have a
significant effect on efficiency, competition, or capital formation,
and we do not anticipate that any competitive advantages or
disadvantages would be created.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240

    Brokers, Confidential business information, Fraud, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Statutory Basis and Text of Rules

    The Commission is amending 17 CFR part 240, pursuant to authority
set forth in the Exchange Act, including Sections 19(b) and 23(a).

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

0
1. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read in part as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i,
78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78p, 78q, 78s,
78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3,
80b-4 and 80b-11, and 7210 et seq., 18 U.S.C. 1350, and 12 U.S.C.
5221(e)(3), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
2. Amend Sec.  240.19b-4 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph (a)(1); and
0
b. Adding new paragraph (a)(2).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  240.19b-4  Filings with respect to proposed rule changes by self-
regulatory organizations.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) For purposes of Section 19(b) of the Act and this rule, a
``business day'' is any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, Federal
holiday, a day that the Office of Personnel Management has announced
that Federal agencies in the Washington, DC area are closed to the
public, a day on which the Commission is subject to a Federal
government shutdown or a day on which the Commission's Washington, DC
office is otherwise not open for regular business.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 7, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8919 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6364-6365]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01934]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17a-8; OMB Control No. 3235-0235, SEC File No. 270-225.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17a-8 (17 CFR 270.17a-8) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (the ``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a) is entitled ``Mergers of affiliated
companies.'' Rule 17a-8 exempts certain mergers and similar business
combinations (``mergers'') of affiliated registered investment
companies (``funds'') from prohibitions under section 17(a) of the Act
(15 U.S.C. 80a-17(a)) on purchases and sales between a fund and its
affiliates. The rule requires fund directors to consider certain issues
and to record their findings in board minutes. The rule requires the
directors of any fund merging with an unregistered entity to approve
procedures for the valuation of assets received from that entity. These

procedures must provide for the preparation of a report by an
independent evaluator that sets forth the fair value of each such asset
for which market quotations are not readily available. The rule also
requires a fund being acquired to obtain approval of the merger
transaction by a majority of its outstanding voting securities, except
in certain situations, and requires any surviving fund to preserve
written records describing the merger and its terms for six years after
the merger (the first two in an easily accessible place).
    The average annual burden of meeting the requirements of rule 17a-8
is estimated to be 7 hours for each fund. The Commission staff
estimates that each year approximately 736 funds rely on the rule. The
estimated total average annual burden for all respondents therefore is
5,152 hours.
    This estimate represents an increase of 882 hours from the prior
estimate of 4,270 hours. This increase reflects a change in the
estimated number of funds relying on rule 17a-8.
    The average cost burden of preparing a report by an independent
evaluator in a merger with an unregistered entity is estimated to be
$15,000. The average net cost burden of obtaining approval of a merger
transaction by a majority of a fund's outstanding voting securities is
estimated to be $100,000. The Commission staff estimates that each year
approximately 0 mergers with unregistered entities occur and
approximately 15 funds hold shareholder votes that would not otherwise
have held a shareholder vote. The total annual cost burden of meeting
these requirements is estimated to be $1,500,000.
    The estimates of average burden hours and average cost burdens are
made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are
not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or
study. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
    Written comments are requested on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 24, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01934 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P