[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20518-20520]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8058]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0355; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-013-AD;
Amendment 39-17007; AD 2012-07-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta
S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB412 helicopters with certain tail rotor blades
(blades) installed. This AD requires, before further flight, removing
and replacing each affected blade with an airworthy blade. This AD is
prompted by incidents where a blade tip weight separated from a blade
in flight on other model helicopters with common part-numbered blades.
It has been determined that this unsafe condition may also exist on the
specified Agusta model helicopters. The actions specified in this AD
are intended to prevent loss of the blade tip weight, loss of a blade,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 20, 2012.
    We must receive comments on this AD by June 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket
Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Agusta
Westland, Customer Support & Services, Via Per Tornavento 15, 21019
Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone 39-0331-
711133; fax 39 0331 711180; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bullettins. You may review a copy of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Emergency AD No.: 2010-0272-E, dated December 22, 2010 (EAD 2010-0272-
E), to correct an unsafe condition for the Agusta Model AB204B, AB205A-
1, AB206A, AB206B, AB212, AB412 and AB412EP helicopters. EASA advises
that Rotor Blades Inc. (RBI) informed Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
(BHTI) about four incidents of a blade tip weight separating from a
blade in flight, and the subsequent investigation showed that these
occurrences were caused by improper repair actions by RBI. EASA states
that to address this safety concern, BHTI issued several alert service
bulletins (ASBs) applicable to U.S. and Canada manufactured Bell type
designs. In response to these ASBs, Transport Canada issued Emergency
AD CF-2007-21R1 (dated November 30, 2010), and the FAA issued Emergency
AD 2010-26-52 (dated December 10, 2010). EASA states that although the
unsafe condition has been detected only on parts manufactured by BHTI
and installed on BHTI helicopters, the possibility exists, due to part
number commonality between the rotor blade type designs, that the
affected parts may be installed on corresponding Agusta helicopter
types, among others, for helicopter models not type certificated in the
U.S. Agusta has issued Bollettino Tecnico (BT) 412-130, dated December
20, 2010 (BT 412-130), to inform affected owners and operators of this
unsafe condition, and EASA issued EAD 2010-0272-E in response to the BT
to address this unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We
are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by
EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist
or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed BT 412-130, which references Bell Helicopter ASB No.
412-07-123 Revision B, dated November 22, 2010, and specifies removing
any affected tail rotor blade, returning the removed blade to Agusta,
and replacing it with an airworthy blade. EASA classified this BT as
mandatory and issued EAD 2010-0272-E to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these helicopters.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, before further flight, unless already
accomplished, replacing any affected blade with an airworthy blade. An
airworthy blade is one that has a part number and a serial number

not included in the Applicability section of this AD. Affected blades
are those having a part number and serial number as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Part No.                                                Serial No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
212-010-750-105........................  A-11923.
212-010-750-105FM......................  A-10090, A-10836, A-10857, A-11207, A-11332, A-11617, A-11828, A-12043,
                                          or A-12091.
212-010-750-113........................  A-14953, A-15090, or CS-12702.
212-010-750-113FM......................  A-12240, A-12286, A-12296, A-12398, A-12640, A-12670, A-12789, A-13033,
                                          A-13088 A-13096, A-13106 A-13134, A-13199, A-13264, A-13366, or A-
                                          13539.
212-010-750-133........................  A-15602.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No helicopters of this type are registered in the United States.
However, this rule is necessary to ensure that the described unsafe
condition is addressed if any of these products are placed on the U.S.
Registry in the future.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2010-0272-E applies to Agusta S.p.A. Model AB204B, AB205A-
1, AB206A, AB212, AB412, and AB412EP helicopters. This AD only applies
to the U.S. type certificated Agusta Model AB412 helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

    There are no costs of compliance because no helicopters of this
type design are on the U.S. Registry.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no affected helicopters on the U.S.
Registry, we believe it is unlikely that we would receive any adverse
comments or useful information about this AD from U.S. Operators. Since
an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this
AD, we have determined that notice and opportunity for prior public
comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary and that good cause
exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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):

2012-07-01 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-17007; Docket No. FAA-2012-
0355; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-013-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. Model AB412 helicopters with
the following tail rotor blades installed:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Part No.                                                Serial No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
212-010-750-105........................  A-11923.
212-010-750-105FM......................  A-10090, A-10836, A-10857, A-11207, A-11332, A-11617, A-11828, A-12043,
                                          or A-12091.
212-010-750-113........................  A-14953, A-15090, or CS-12702.
212-010-750-113FM......................  A-12240, A-12286, A-12296, A-12398, A-12640, A-12670, A-12789, A-13033,
                                          A-13088, A-13096, A-13106, A-13134, A-13199, A-13264, A-13366, or A-
                                          13539.
212-010-750-133........................  A-15602.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as separation of the tail
rotor blade (blade) tip weight from a blade in flight, causing
vibration. This condition could result in loss of a tail rotor blade
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

 (c) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 20,
2012.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Before further flight, replace any affected blade with an
airworthy blade, defined as one that has a part number and a serial
number not listed in the Applicability section of this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a Part 119 operating
certificate or under Part 91, Subpart K, we suggest that you notify
your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the
manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate
holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying
with this AD through an AMOC.

 (g) Additional Information

    (1) Agusta Bollettino Tecnico 412-130, dated December 20, 2010,
which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional
information about the subject of this AD. For service information
identified in this AD, contact Agusta Westland, Customer Support &
Services, Via Per Tornavento 15, 21019 Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy,
ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone 39-0331-711133; fax 39 0331
711180; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bullettins.
You may review a copy of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation
Safety Agency Emergency AD No.: 2010-0272-E, dated December 22,
2010.

 (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410, tail rotor
blades.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 26, 2012.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-8058 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51692-51693]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2022-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2262]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before November 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2262, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Grafton County, New Hampshire (All Jurisdictions)
        Project: 18-01-0026S Preliminary Date: December 13, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Alexandria.....................  Town Office, 47 Washburn Road,
                                          Alexandria, NH 03222.
Town of Ashland........................  Town Office, 20 Highland
                                          Street, Ashland, NH 03217.
Town of Benton.........................  Town Hall, 221 Coventry Road,
                                          Benton, NH 03785.
Town of Bethlehem......................  Planning Board Office, 2155
                                          Main Street, Bethlehem, NH
                                          03574.
Town of Bridgewater....................  Town Office, 297 Mayhew
                                          Turnpike, Bridgewater, NH
                                          03222.
Town of Bristol........................  Town Office, 5 School Street,
                                          Bristol, NH 03222.
Town of Campton........................  Town Office, 12 Gearty Way,
                                          Campton, NH 03223.
Town of Canaan.........................  Town Office, 1169 U.S. Route 4,
                                          Canaan, NH 03741.
Town of Dorchester.....................  Town Office, 1021 New Hampshire
                                          Route 118, Dorchester, NH
                                          03266.
Town of Ellsworth......................  Town Office, 3 Ellsworth Pond
                                          Road, Ellsworth, NH 03223.
Town of Franconia......................  Town Hall, 421 Main Street,
                                          Franconia, NH 03580.
Town of Grafton........................  Town Office, 7 Library Road,
                                          Grafton, NH 03240.
Town of Groton.........................  Town Office, 754 North Groton
                                          Road, Groton, NH 03241.
Town of Hebron.........................  Select Board Office, 7 School
                                          Street, Hebron, NH 03241.
Town of Holderness.....................  Town Hall, 1089 U.S. Route 3,
                                          Holderness, NH 03245.
Town of Lincoln........................  Town Hall, 148 Main Street,
                                          Lincoln, NH 03251.
Town of Orange.........................  Town Office, 8 Town House Road,
                                          Orange, NH 03741.
Town of Orford.........................  Town Office, 2529 Route 25A,
                                          Orford, NH 03777.
Town of Piermont.......................  Municipal Offices, 130 Route
                                          10, Piermont, NH 03779.
Town of Plymouth.......................  Town Office, 6 Post Office
                                          Square, Plymouth, NH 03264.
Town of Rumney.........................  Town Office, 79 Depot Street,
                                          Rumney, NH 03266.
Town of Thornton.......................  Town Office, 16 Merrill Access
                                          Road, Thornton, NH 03285.
Town of Warren.........................  Selectmen's Office, 8 Water
                                          Street, Warren, NH 03279.
Town of Waterville Valley..............  Rust Municipal Building, 14 TAC
                                          Lane, Waterville Valley, NH
                                          03215.
Town of Wentworth......................  Town Office, 7 Atwell Hill
                                          Road, Wentworth, NH 03282.
Town of Woodstock......................  Town Office, 165 Lost River
                                          Road, Woodstock, NH 03262.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Ross County, Ohio and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 13-05-4987S Preliminary Date: April 29, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Chillicothe....................  City Administration Building,
                                          35 South Paint Street,
                                          Chillicothe, OH 45601.
Unincorporated Areas of Ross County....  Ross County Building
                                          Department, 15 North Paint
                                          Street, Chillicothe, OH 45601.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-18127 Filed 8-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39304-39305]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15652]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2013-0027; OMB No. 1660-0119]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; FEMA Preparedness Grants: Operation Stonegarden (OPSG)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved
information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the information
collection activities required to administer the Operation Stonegarden
(OPSG) Grant Program.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2013-0027. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 840, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Mrazik, Program Analyst, FEMA,
Grant Programs Directorate,<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may contact the Records
Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of
information at facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A State Homeland Security Grant Program
(SHSP) was established to assist State, local, and tribal governments
in preventing, preparing for, protecting against, and responding to
acts of terrorism. As a component of the SHSP, Operation Stonegarden
grants are established by Section 2004(a) of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605), as amended by Section 101, Title I of the
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub.
L. 110-053). Title III of the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 110-329)
provides a specific line item within the SHSP appropriation to fund the
Operation Stonegarden grant.

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Operation Stonegarden (OPSG).
    OMB Number: 1660-0119.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 089-16, OPSG Operations Order Report; FEMA
Form 089-20, Operations Order Prioritization.
    Abstract: The Operation Stonegarden grant is an important tool
among a comprehensive set of measures to help strengthen the Nation
against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks. FEMA uses
the information to evaluate applicants' familiarity with the national
preparedness architecture and identify how elements of this
architecture have been incorporated into regional/state/local planning,
operations, and investments. The grant provides funding to designated
localities to enhance cooperation and coordination between Federal,
State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in a joint mission to
secure the U.S. borders along routes of ingress from International
borders to include travel corridors in States bordering Mexico and
Canada, as well as States and territories with international water
borders.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 39.
    Number of Responses: 78.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 25,038 hours.

                                                 Table A.12--Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number of                Avg. burden     Total                     Total
                                                                Number of    responses      Total         per         annual    Avg. hourly     annual
         Type of respondent             Form name/ form  no.   respondents      per       number of     response   burden  (in    wage rate   respondent
                                                                             respondent   responses    (in hours)     hours)         *           cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local or Tribal Government...  OPSG Operations Order             39            1           39          570       22,230       $37.80  $840,294.00
                                       Report/FEMA Form 089-
                                       16.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Operations Order                  39            1           39      72 hrs.        2,808        37.80   106,142.40
                                       Prioritization/FEMA
                                       Form 089-20.
    Total...........................  .......................           39  ...........           78  ...........       25,038  ...........   946,436.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The ``Avg. Hourly Wage Rate'' for each respondent includes a 1.4 multiplier to reflect a fully-loaded wage rate.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $946,436.40. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$388,618.70.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: June 20, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-15652 Filed 6-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76783-76785]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31483]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65875; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-112]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to FLEX Transaction Fees

December 2, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 23, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by CBOE. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing
or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by CBOE under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its Fees Schedule as it relates
to Flexible Exchange Options (``FLEX Options'').\5\ The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FLEX Options provide investors with the ability to customize
basic option features including size, expiration date, exercise
style, and certain exercise prices. FLEX Options can be FLEX Index
Options or FLEX Equity Options. In addition, other products are
permitted to be traded pursuant to the FLEX trading procedures. For
example, credit options are eligible for trading as FLEX Options
pursuant to the FLEX rules in Chapters XXIVA and XXIVB. See CBOE
Rules 24A.1(e) and (f), 24A.4(b)(1) and (c)(1), 24B.1(f) and (g),
24B.4(b)(1) and (c)(1), and 28.17. The rules governing the trading
of FLEX Options on the FLEX Request for Quote (``RFQ'') System
platform (which consists of open outcry based trading) are generally
contained in Chapter XXIVA. The rules governing the trading of FLEX
Options on the FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform (which combines
both open outcry and electronic based trading) are generally
contained in Chapter XXIVB. Currently, all FLEX Options are traded
on the FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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. CBOE 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 proposed rule change is to revise the CBOE Fees
Schedule as it relates to FLEX Options. In particular, the Exchange is
proposing to amend the fees schedule to provide that FLEX transactions
for the account of non-Trading Permit Holder broker-dealers (which use
the ``C'' order origin code) are subject to the same transaction fee
rates that are applicable to public customers (which also use the ``C''
order origin code).\6\ This change will be effective immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The FLEX transaction fees for public customers are currently
as follows: $0.00 per contract for equity options; $0.44 per
contract for SPX options where the premium is greater than or equal
to $1; $0.35 per contract for SPX options where the premium is less
than $1; $0.40 per contract for OEX, XEO, S&P500 Dividend Index and
Volatility Index options (except OEX and XEO Weeklys); $0.30 per
contract for OEX and XEO Weeklys; $0.00 for QQQQ options; $0.18 per
contract for all other index, exchange-traded fund (``ETF''),
exchange-traded note (``ETN'') and HOLDRS options; and $0.85 per
contract for credit default options and credit default basket
options. In addition, a ``CFLEX Surcharge Fee'' of $0.10 per
contract applies to all orders (all origin codes) executed
electronically on the FLEX Hybrid Trading System. The CFLEX
Surcharge Fee is charged up to the first 2,500 contracts per trade.
See CBOE Fees Schedule Section 1 and Footnotes 1 and 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the FLEX trading procedures and principles contained in
Rule 24B.5 provide for certain allocation priorities to public
customers and non-Trading Permit Holder broker-dealers.\7\ To
accomplish this, both public customer orders and non-Trading Permit
Holder broker-dealer orders in FLEX Options are currently identified
through using the order origin code ``C''. However, use of the same
code may result in billing discrepancies because the public customer
fee rates currently differ from broker-dealer fee rates.\8\ For

ease of administration, the Exchange is therefore proposing that the
same FLEX Option transactions fees that apply to transactions for the
account of public customers should apply to transactions for the
account on non-Trading Permit Holder broker-dealers. The Exchange also
believes that applying the same fee for FLEX Option transactions on
behalf of the account of public customer orders and non-Trading Permit
Holder broker-dealers is a reasonable and equitable allocation of fees
in that the same fees are applicable to all Trading Permit Holders
representing public customer and non-Trading Permit Holder broker-
dealer orders. The Exchange also generally believes that the level of
activity associated with FLEX Options trading overall,\9\ and with FLEX
Options trading on behalf of non-Trading Permit Holder broker-dealer
activity in particular, is deminimis and it is therefore
administratively convenient to assess transaction fees for non-Trading
Permit Holder broker-dealers in this manner.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under the FLEX electronic request for quotes (``RFQ'')
process, an incoming RFQ order is eligible to trade with FLEX RFQ
responses (referred to as ``FLEX Quotes'') and FLEX Orders at a
single clearing price that leaves bids and offers which cannot trade
with each other (referred to as a ``BBO clearing price'') In
determining priority, the FLEX system gives priority to FLEX Quotes
and FLEX Orders whose price is better than the BBO clearing price,
then to FLEX Quotes and FLEX Orders at the BBO clearing price.
Generally, allocation among multiple FLEX Quotes and FLEX Orders at
the BBO clearing price are first to FLEX Quotes subject to a FLEX
Appointed Market-Maker participant entitlement, if applicable;
second to FLEX Orders resting in the FLEX electronic book; third to
FLEX Quotes for the account of public customers and non-Trading
Permit Holder broker-dealers, with multiple interest ranked based on
time priority, and finally all other FLEX Quotes, with multiple
interest ranked based on time priority. See Rule 24B.5(a)(1)(C); see
also Rule 24B.5(a)(1)(C) and (D) for various on the allocation
algorithm when the RFQ market is locked or crossed or when the
Trading Permit Holder that initiated the RFQ has indicated an
intention to cross.
    \8\ The Exchange notes that, to the extent there may be any
billing discrepancy with respect to FLEX Options transactions for
the account of a non-Trading Permit Holder broker-dealers, such
discrepancy would result in an under collection by the Exchange for
such transactions. In that regard, the FLEX transaction fees for
broker-dealers are currently as follows: $0.25, $0.45 and $0.20 per
contract for equity options respectively for manual, electronic and
QQQ transactions; $0.40 per contract for OEX, XEO, SPX, S&P 500
Dividend Index and Volatility Index options; $0.25 per contract for
other indexes, ETFs, ETNs, and HOLDRS for manual transactions; $0.45
per contract for other indexes, ETFs, ETNs, and HOLDRS options for
electronic transactions; $0.20 per contract for QQQ; $0.25 per
contract for credit default options and credit default basket
options for manual transactions; and $0.45 per contract for credit
default options and credit default basket options for electronic
transactions. In addition, certain ``Surcharge Fees'' apply to all
non-public customer transactions (i.e., CBOE and non-Trading Permit
Holder market-maker, Clearing Trading Permit Holder and broker-
dealer) including to Voluntary Professionals and Professionals.
These surcharges include an index license fee of $0.10 per contract
for OEX, XEO, SPX, S&P500 Dividend Index, DJX and Volatility Index
options (except GVZ), and $0.15 per contract for MNX, NDX and RUT
options; and a product research and development fee of $0.10 per
contract for GVZ options. As noted above, a ``CFLEX Surcharge Fee''
of $0.10 per contract also applies to all orders (all origin codes)
executed electronically on the FLEX Hybrid Trading System. The CFLEX
Surcharge Fee is charged up to the first 2,500 contracts per trade.
See CBOE Fees Schedule Section 1 and Footnotes 1, 14 and 17.
    \9\ For example, during September 2011, all FLEX Options trading
activity accounted for approximately 0.08% of the Exchange's average
daily volume.
    \10\ The Exchange is evaluating whether to introduce a separate
order origin code for FLEX Orders that are entered for the account
of non-Trading Permit Holder broker-dealers. If the Exchange would
introduce such a code in the future, we anticipate that the Exchange
may considering revising the fee schedule to assess transaction fees
rates for non-Trading Permit Holders broker-dealers that differ from
the transaction fee rates applicable to public customers. Any such
change to the fees schedule would be addressed through a separate
rule change filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Trading
Permit Holders. The proposed change is reasonable because the
transaction fee rates for the account of non-Trading Permit Holder
broker-dealers are the same as the rates that apply to public
customers. The proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the same fees are applicable to all Trading
Permit Holders representing public customers and non-Trading Permit
Holder broker-dealers. Further, the Exchange generally believes that
level of activity associated with FLEX Options trading overall,\13\ and
with FLEX Options trading on behalf of non-Trading Permit Holder
broker-dealer activity in particular, is deminimis and it is therefore
administratively convenient to assess transaction fees for non-Trading
Permit Holder broker-dealers in this manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \13\ See note 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, thereby
qualifying for effectiveness on filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \14\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \15\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-CBOE-2011-112 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-CBOE-2011-112. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2011-112 and should be
submitted on or before December 29, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31483 Filed 12-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18282-18283]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08715]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0693; FRL-9993-09-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an

information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore
Processing (EPA ICR Number 2050.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0538) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30,
2019. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal
Register on May 30, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0693, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
[email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the regulations published at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart RRRRR were proposed on December 18, 2002, promulgated on
October 30, 2003, and amended on April 20, 2006. These regulations
apply to existing facilities and new taconite iron ore processing
facilities that emit or have the potential to emit a single hazardous
air pollutant (HAP) at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any
combination of HAPs at a rate of 25 tons or more per year. The affected
sources are ore crushing and handling operations, ore dryers,
indurating furnaces, finished pellet handling emission units, and
fugitive dust emissions. New facilities include those that commenced
construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal. This
information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part
63, subpart RRRRR.
    In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Taconite iron ore processing
facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63
subpart RRRRR).
    Estimated number of respondents: 7 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 483 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $576,000 (per year), includes $521,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes. The
adjustment increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR is
due to an increase in the number of sources. Three sources that have
been idle have restarted operations. There is no change in capital/
startup costs compared with the costs in the previous ICR, as there are
no new sources subject to initial startup requirements. The change in
the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs compared with the costs in
the previous ICR are due to the three existing plants that were idle
becoming operational.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-08715 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53512-53514]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21421]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0215]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 12 individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition against persons with a clinical
diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause a
loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. The
regulation and the associated

advisory criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the
``Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations''
have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs
in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical
examiner. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who
have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to
operate CMVs for 2 years in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2014-0215 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316; January 17, 2008).
This information is also available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine Papp, Chief, Medical Programs
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
letter FMCSA, Room W64-113, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), 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 statutes also allow the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 12
individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption
from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), which applies to
drivers who operate CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, in interstate
commerce. Section 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no
established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any
other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or
any loss of ability to control a CMV.
    FMCSA provides medical advisory criteria for use by medical
examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical
conditions should be certified to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce.
The advisory criteria indicate that if an individual has had a sudden
episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown
cause which did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision
whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of
consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an
individual basis by the medical examiner in consultation with the
treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested
that a 6-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode.
Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have
a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination
are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the
driver may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has fully recovered from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication. Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/
seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years,
may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate
drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified
to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-
seizure medication for a 5-year period or more.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission. To
submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the
search box insert the docket number ``FMCSA-2014-0215'' and click the
search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue ``Comment
Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new page,
enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, To submit your comment online, go to

http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket
number ``FMCSA-2014-0215'' and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open
Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to
the proposed rulemaking.

Summary of Applications

Thomas Avery, Jr.

    Mr. Avery is a 45 year-old class B CDL holder in New York. He has a
history of seizure and has remained seizure free since 1998. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since that time. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a
CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Avery receiving an
exemption.

Michael G. Berthiaume

    Mr. Berthiaume is a 54 year-old driver in Minnesota. He has a
history of seizure and has remained seizure free since 2006. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since November 2013. If granted an exemption, he would like to
drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Berthiaume
receiving an exemption.

Brian L. Bose

    Mr. Bose is a 49 year-old class B CDL holder in Illinois. He has a
history of Right Frontal Lobe Epilepsy secondary to a right frontal
meningioma which was resected in 1997 and required reoperation in 2014.
He had a single postoperative seizure after the re-operation in 2014.
He takes anti-seizure medication since 1997. If granted the exemption,
he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of
Mr. Bose receiving an exemption.

Aimee-Christine M. Bjornstad

    Ms. Bjornstad is a 28 year-old driver in Indiana. She has a history
of post traumatic partial epilepsy and has remained seizure free since
2008. She takes anti-seizure medication with a recent change medication
in August 2014. If granted the exemption, she would like to drive a
CMV. Her physician states that he is supportive of Ms. Bjornstad
receiving an exemption.

Leo Kurt Clemens

    Mr. Clemens is a 59 year-old class B CDL holder in Pennsylvania. He
has a history of seizure and has remained seizure free for more than 25
years. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same for 3 years. If granted the exemption, he would like
to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Clemens receiving an exemption.

Danny Lee Crafton

    Mr. Crafton is a 65 year-old class A CDL holder in Idaho. He has a
history of seizure and has remained seizure free since 1974. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2001. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a
CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Crafton
receiving an exemption.

Kenneth D. Peachey

    Mr. Peachey is a 72 year-old class A CDL holder in Pennsylvania. He
has a history of seizure and has remained seizure free since 1984. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to
drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Peachey
receiving an exemption.

Todd W. Riel

    Mr. Riel is a 45 year-old class A CDL holder in Ohio. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2011.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would
like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Riel receiving an exemption.

Tory Shuler

    Mr. Shuler is a 45 year-old driver in New York. He has a history of
seizure and has remained seizure free since 2012. He takes anti-seizure
medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that
time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His
physician states he is supportive of Mr. Shuler receiving an exemption.

Philip Neil Stewart

    Mr. Stewart is a 43 year-old class A CDL holder in California. He
has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free for
30 years. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same for 15 years. If granted the exemption, he
would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive
of Mr. Stewart receiving an exemption.

Keith T. White

    Mr. White is a 59 year-old class A CDL holder in Pennsylvania. He
has a history of seizure and has remained seizure free since 1994. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 2004. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a
CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. White receiving
an exemption.

Alan T. Von Lintel

    Mr. Von Lintel is a 60 year-old driver in Kansas. He has a history
of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2004. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since July 2012. If granted the exemption, he would like to
drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Von
Lintel receiving an exemption.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption
applications described in this notice. We will consider all comments
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated
earlier in the notice.

    Issued on: August 28, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-21421 Filed 9-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79037-79038]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30932]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71153; File No. SR-ISE-2013-67]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change to Make Non-Controversial Changes to ISE Rules

December 20, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on December 5, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II and III below, which items have been prepared
by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to make a number of non-controversial changes
and technical corrections to its rules. Examples of such corrections
include updating ISE rule number citations and cross references,
correcting typographical errors, deleting obsolete rule text, and
updating the table of contents. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://www.ise.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to make a number of non-controversial and
technical changes to its rules. Examples of such corrections include
updating ISE rule number citations and cross-references, correcting
typographical errors, and deleting obsolete rule text. Following is a
narrative description of each of the corrections:
    [ssquf] The Table of Contents to the ISE Rules is being amended to
correct a typo in the title of Rule 311 and to reflect the adoption of
ISE Rule 703A (Trading During Limit Up-Limit Down States in Underlying
Securities), since this rule was not added to the Table of Contents
when this rule was initially adopted.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69148 (March 15,
2013), 78 FR 17462 (March 21, 2013) (SR-ISE-2013-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] ISE Rule 413 (Exemptions from Position Limits) is being
amended to update an incorrect rule cross-reference numbers in
paragraphs (a), (a)(7)(A) and (a)(7)(F). The cross-references are
incorrect due to amendments to the cross-referenced rules which changed
the numbering and therefore made the cross-reference incorrect.
    [ssquf] ISE Rule 701 (Trading Rotations) is being amended to make a
non-substantive change to correct a typographical error in paragraph
(b)(2) and to remove the first sentence in paragraph (c), which states
that trading in options will close 2 minutes after the primary market
on which the underlying stock trades closes for trading. This reference
to a 4:02 p.m. closing should have been removed when the hours of
trading on the Exchange were amended,\4\ but was inadvertently
overlooked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53248 (February 7,
2006), 71 FR 8015 (February 15, 2006) (SR-ISE-2005-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] ISE Rule 705 (Limitation of Liability) is being amended to
change a non-substantive word to update the sentence structure of
paragraph (a).
    [ssquf] ISE Rule 715 (Types of Orders) is being amended to delete
the duplicate definition of ``Minimum Quantity Orders'' in paragraph
(l) and replace it with the defined term of ``Day Order.'' Paragraph
(r) is being added to define the term ``Good-Till-Cancelled Order (GTC
Order).'' The addition of these two order types qualify for non-
controversial treatment as there is nothing new or novel with respect
to these types of orders because they already exist on other exchanges,
for example, the Chicago Board Options Exchange has identical order
types.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CBOE Rule 43.2(5) and (7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] Supplementary Material .08 to ISE Rule 716 (Block Trades)
is being amended to make a non-substantive change to delete the term
``Indications'' and replace it with the term ``Responses'' for
consistency throughout the rule.
    [ssquf] ISE Rule 802 (Appointment of Market Makers) is being
amended to insert a non-substantive word to correct the sentence
structure of paragraph (c)(3).
    [ssquf] ISE Rules 803, 810 and 811 are being amended to remove
cross-references to Rule 803(c)(2) and replace them with the correct
cross-references, where applicable.

    These cross-references were inadvertently missed when paragraph
803(c)(2) was deleted from the rules.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69396 (April 18,
2013), 78 FR 24273 (April 24, 2013) (SR-ISE-2013-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] ISE Rule 804(d)(3) is being deleted as this provision is
obsolete and no longer applicable.
 2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \7\ that an exchange have rules that
are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to make these
technical corrections to its rules so that Exchange members and
investors have a clear and accurate understanding of the meaning of the
Exchange's rules. By removing obsolete rule text, the Exchange is
eliminating any potential for confusion about how its systems operate,
particularly since the Exchange had operated two trading systems while
it migrated from its prior system to Optimise, its new trading system.
By updating cross-references in its rules, the Exchange is eliminating
any inaccuracies. The addition of a Day Order and a GTC Order qualifies
for non-controversial treatment as there is nothing new or novel with
respect to these order types. Day Orders and GTC Orders merely address
the time-in-force of an order and are standard, generic orders. In
addition, CBOE has both of these order types in its rules.\8\ The
Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly
discriminatory because it treats all market participants equally and
will not have an adverse impact on any market participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ See note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Most of the proposed rule changes are non-substantive corrections
to the Exchange's rules and therefore do not implicate the competition
analysis. The change proposing to adopt two new order types is non-
controversial as they already exist on another exchange and merely
address the time-in-force of an order, and will therefore not impact
competition because these order types already exist. The proposed rule
changes will serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency,
thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor
protection.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \10\ thereunder. The Exchange provided the Commission with
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR. 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-ISE-2013-67 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-ISE-2013-67. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-67 and should be
submitted on or before January 17, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30932 Filed 12-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 28, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-17986

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

By Notice of Action Taken (NOAT), dated July 6, 2004, we granted the
joint application of Air Wisconsin Corporation, Chautauqua Airlines,
Inc., Mesa Airlines, Inc., Republic Airline, Inc. Shuttle America Corp.,
Sky West Airlines, Inc., Trans States Airlines, Inc. (Joint Applicants)
for interim statements of authorization under 14 CFR Part 212, for a
90-day period, to enable them to carry the codes of certain foreign
carriers (described below) on services that Joint Applicants operate as
United Express, pending finalization and Departmental review of relevant
contractual agreements.  The foreign carriers involved are:  Air Canada,
All Nippon Airways Co. Ltd., Austrian Airlines, Österreichische
Luftverkehrs AG, British Midland Airways Limited, Deutsche Lufthansa AG,
and Scandinavian Airlines System.  By Notice of Action Taken, dated
October 4, 2004, we granted the September 17 request of the Joint
Applicants for an additional 90-day period through January 2, 2005.

On December 22, 2004, Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation and Deutsche
Lufthansa AG jointly filed their Code-Share Agreement with the
Department for review, and requested an indefinite extension of the
statement of authorization granted by the previous NOATs once
Departmental review has been completed.  Included in the December 22
joint submission was a joint request that the Department extend the
temporary statement of authorization (scheduled to expire January 2,
2005) until February 1, 2005.

The applicants polled all parties served with the December 22 request
and received no objections.

Applicant rep:  David Heffernan<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:  Linda
Senese<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted the requested temporary extension (subject to the conditions
contained in our Notice of Action Taken, dated July 6, 2004, in this
Docket)

The above action was effective when taken:  December 28, 2004 through
February 1, 2005.

Basis for action:  We found that the Joint Applicants demonstrated good
cause for the requested extension of the interim statement of
authorization, and noted that no party opposed such extension.  Under
these circumstances, we found that the requested extension, subject to
the conditions noted above, was in the public interest.  In taking this
action, we reserved the right to amend, modify, or revoke this authority
at any time without hearing.

Remarks:  We acted on this application without awaiting expiration of
the 7-business-day answer period with the consent of all parties served.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

 We fully described the background and nature of the authority conferred
in our July 6 Notice of Action Taken.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2