[Federal Register: April 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 22125]
[DOCID:fr27ap10-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC10-73-000]

Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Filing

April 20, 2010.
    Take notice that on April 9, 2010 Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline,
L.P. submitted a request for waiver of the requirement to submit the
2009 FERC Form No. 2-A under Sections 260.2 of the Commission
regulations.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: May 20, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9688 Filed 4-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 121 (Thursday, June 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 36951]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15825]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 [File No. 500-1]

 In the Matter of Shiming U.S., Inc., Si Mei Te Food Ltd. (f/k/a
China Discovery Acquisition Corp.), Sierra International Group, Inc.,
and SJ Electronics, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

June 21, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Shiming U.S., Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended June 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Si Mei Te Food Ltd. (f/k/a China Discovery Acquisition Corp.) because
it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December
31, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Sierra International Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since June 30, 2010. The only other periodic report filed by
the company was a Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
SJ Electronics, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 2008.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on June 21, 2011, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 5, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15825 Filed 6-21-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14515-14516]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05334]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0067]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: High Density
Traffic Airports; Slot Allocation and Transfer Methods

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request approval from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew a currently approved
information collection. The FAA collects information from U.S. and
foreign air carriers holding a slot at Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport (DCA), John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK),
and LaGuardia Airport (LGA); operating scheduled flights at Newark
Liberty International Airport (EWR), Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX), O'Hare International Airport (ORD), and San Francisco
International Airport (SFO); and conducting unscheduled operations at
DCA and LGA. The information collected is necessary to support the
advance management of air traffic demand by the FAA Slot Administration
in an effort to reduce potential delays. The FAA proposes renaming this
information collection to ``FAA Runway Slot Administration and Schedule
Analysis'' to more accurately reflect the collection of information
related to multiple airports subject to different FAA regulatory and
voluntary processes under this program.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 17, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA
Docket Number FAA-2021-0067 at the beginning of your comments. You may
also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Gonabe, FAA Slot
Administration, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone: (609) 485-
9554.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: Public comment is invited on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0524.
    Title: High Density Traffic Airports; Slot Allocation and Transfer
Methods.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The FAA has implemented several initiatives to address
air traffic congestion and delay at certain airports within the
National Airspace System (NAS). DCA slot rules are established under 14
CFR part 93, subparts K and S. The FAA has issued Orders limiting
operations at JFK and LGA.\1\ These Orders resulted from increasing
congestion and delays at the airports requiring the FAA to allocate
arrival and departure slots at JFK and LGA. In addition, the FAA has
designated EWR, ORD, SFO, and LAX as Level 2 schedule-facilitated
airports under the IATA Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG) now known as
the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines (WASG).\2\ At Level 2 airports,
the FAA seeks the cooperation of all carriers planning operations, on a
voluntary basis, to maintain close communications on runway schedules
and facilitate adjustments, as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International
Airport, 73 FR 3510 (Jan. 18, 2008), as most recently amended 85 FR
58258 (Sep. 18, 2020); Operating Limitations at New York LaGuardia
Airport, 71 FR 77854 (Dec. 27, 2006), as most recently amended 85 FR
58255 (Sep. 18, 2020).
    \2\ Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for
O'Hare International, John F. Kennedy International, and Newark
Liberty International Airports for the Summer 2009 Scheduling
Season, 73 FR 54659 (Sept. 22, 2008); Notice of Submission Deadline
for Schedule Information for San Francisco International Airport for
the Summer 2012 Scheduling Season, 76 FR 64163 (Oct. 17, 2011);
Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for Los
Angeles International Airport for the Summer 2015 Scheduling Season
80 FR 12253 (Mar. 6, 2015); Notice of Change of Newark Liberty
International Airport Designation, 81 FR 19861 (Apr. 6, 2016). The
FAA reaffirmed the Level 2 designations by 85 FR 65134 (Oct. 14,
2020). These designations remain effective until the FAA announces a
change in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At DCA, U.S. and foreign air carriers, including commuter
operators, must notify the FAA of: (1) Written consent and requests for
confirmation of slot transfers; (2) slots required to be returned and
slots voluntarily returned; (3) requests to be included in a lottery
for the permanent allocation of available slots; (4) reports on usage
of slots on a bi-monthly basis; and (5) requests for slots in low-
demand hours or other temporary allocations. Operators must obtain a
reservation from the FAA prior to conducting an unscheduled operation.
At LGA, U.S. and foreign air carriers must notify the FAA of: (1)
Written consent and requests for confirmation of slot transfers; (2)
slots required to be returned and slots voluntarily returned; (3)
requests to be included in a lottery for the permanent allocation of
available slots; and (4) reports usage of slots on a bi-monthly basis.
Carriers must also request and obtain a reservation from the FAA prior
to conducting an unscheduled operation. At JFK, U.S. and foreign air
carriers must notify the FAA of: (1) Written consent and requests for
confirmation of slot transfers; (2) requests for seasonal allocation of
historic and additional available slots; (3) reports on usage of slots
on a seasonal basis; (4) the return of slots; and (5) changes to
allocated slots. At EWR, LAX, ORD, and SFO, all carriers are asked to
notify the FAA of their intended operating schedules during designated
hours on a semiannual basis (for each winter and summer scheduling
season) based on the IATA WASG Calendar of Coordination Activities and
provide updates throughout the year when there are significant schedule
changes.
    The FAA estimates that all information from carriers is submitted
electronically from data stored in carrier scheduling databases.
Requests for unscheduled flight reservations are submitted
electronically via the internet. The FAA also proposes to re-name the
collection to ``FAA Runway Slot Administration and Schedule Analysis''
to more accurately reflect the collection of information related to
multiple airports subject to different FAA regulatory and voluntary
processes.
    Respondents: 119 unique carriers; unknown number of carriers
conducting unscheduled operations at LGA and DCA.
    Frequency: Information is collected as needed; some reporting on
bimonthly or semiannual basis.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 6 minutes per slot
transaction per respondent (i.e., transferor and

transferee); 6 minutes per slot return; 6 minutes per schedule update;
6 minutes per request for inclusion in a lottery; 2 minutes per
unscheduled slot request; 1.5 hours per schedule submission; and 1 hour
per slot usage report.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5602.6 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 2021.
Matthew S. Gonabe,
Program Specialist, FAA Slot Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-05334 Filed 3-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


OSHA FEDWEEK REGISTRATION

November 6-8, 2007

Federal agency personnel with safety and health responsibilities are
cordially invited to attend this 3-day training event at the OSHA
Training Institute (OTI), November 6-8, 2007, to enhance their
occupational safety and health knowledge and skills.  The Institute will
conduct a series of concurrent half day technical seminars on Tuesday,
November 6th through Thursday, November 8th, intended for Other
Government Agency personnel only.

Online registration will begin on Monday, October 1st, 2007 and closes
on Friday, October 26th, 2007.  The OSHA Training Institute Course
Catalog can be accessed from the following website:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.osha.gov/pls/oti/oti_schedule.html" \o "OTI Course Schedule
and Registration"  OTI Course Schedule and Registration .  The FEDWEEK
technical seminars are numbered from 1 to 18 and have been assigned 9000
series course numbers.

There is no tuition or fee associated with the training for Other
Government Agency personnel.  However, as provided by U.S. Department of
Labor regulations (29 CFR 1949), the OSHA Training Institute charges
tuition for private sector attendees attending OSHA courses. This
includes Federal government contractor employees.  Tuition payments must
be received prior to the start of the course or registration may be
cancelled.  Attendees will need to work with their employing agencies on
travel expenses.  The OSHA Training Institute is located at 2020 South
Arlington Heights Road in Arlington Heights, IL  60005-4102, which is
convenient to O’Hare Airport.  Attendees may contact OTI for
information on nearby lodging within walking distance, or that provide
shuttle service to the Institute.

Cancellation and Substitution policy:  In the unfortunate event you can
not attend, we ask that you cancel to allow for maximum enrollment. You
should contact Student Services before the commencement of the course to
cancel your registration. This will assist other personnel requiring
training when enrollment is limited.  Substitutions must be processed as
a new registration before Friday, October 26, 2007; any changes after
this date must be made onsite.

OTI has not acquired CEU/CM points for these events; attendees will be
responsible for submitting documentation to the respective organizations
for every half day of attendance at FEDWEEK.

Check-In:  Attendees should arrive to check in no later than 08:00 AM.

Attendance:  Attendees must be in attendance for an entire half day
seminar to receive credit for that seminar.  The sign in sheet must be
completed for each seminar attended.

Please review the seminar options below.  Thank you for your
participation and interest in safety and health training!!

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

DATE/TIME	TOPIC	TOPIC	TOPIC

Check-In no later than 08:00 AM

8:30am – 11:45 am	Seminar 1

9225 - Ergonomics	Seminar 2

9207 - Fire Protection	Seminar 3

9845 - Recordkeeping

Lunch

1:00 pm – 4:15 pm	Seminar 4

9335 - Emergency Response	Seminar 5

9147 - Lockout Tagout	Seminar 6

9326 - Health in Construction

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

DATE/TIME	TOPIC	TOPIC	TOPIC

Check-In no later than 08:00 AM

8:30am – 11:45 am	Seminar 7

9225 - Ergonomics	Seminar 8

9147 - Lockout Tagout	Seminar 9

9245 - Safety and Health Mgmt Systems

Lunch

1:00 pm – 4:15 pm	Seminar 10

9203 - Electrical	Seminar 11

9207 - Fire Protection	Seminar 12

9121 - Intro to Industrial Hygiene

Thursday, November 8, 2007

DATE/TIME	TOPIC	TOPIC	TOPIC

Check-In no later than 08:00 AM

8:30am – 11:45 am	Seminar 13

9335 - Emergency Response	Seminar 14

9121 - Intro to Industrial Hygiene	Seminar 15

9845 - Recordkeeping

Lunch

1:00 pm – 4:15 pm	Seminar 16

9203 - Electrical	Seminar 17

9326 - Health in Construction	Seminar 18

9245 - Safety and Health Mgmt Systems

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 211 (Friday, October 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68955-68956]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2020-0204]

Notice of Rights and Protections Available Under the Federal
Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower Protection Laws

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: No FEAR Act Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice implements Title II of the Notification and
Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No
FEAR Act of 2002). In doing so, the Department of Transportation
notifies all employees, former employees, and applicants for Federal
employment of the rights and protections available to them under the
Federal Anti-discrimination and Whistleblower Protection Laws.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvette Rivera, Associate Director of
the Equity and Access Division (S-32), Departmental Office of Civil
Rights, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W78-306, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-
5131 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may retrieve this document online through the Federal Document
Management System at http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic retrieval
instructions are available under the help section of the website.

No FEAR Act Notice

    On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the ``Notification and Federal
Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002,'' now
recognized as the No FEAR Act (Pub. L. 107-174). One purpose of the Act
is to ``require that Federal agencies be accountable for violations of
antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.'' (Pub. L. 107-
174, Summary). In support of this purpose, Congress found that
``agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or
tolerate discrimination'' (Pub. L. 107-174, Title I, General
Provisions, section 101(1)). The Act also requires the United States
Department of Transportation (USDOT) to issue this Notice to all USDOT
employees, former USDOT employees, and applicants for USDOT employment.
This Notice informs such individuals of the rights and protections
available under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection
laws.

Antidiscrimination Laws

    A Federal agency cannot discriminate against an employee or
applicant with respect to the terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age,
disability, marital status, genetic information, political affiliation,
or in retaliation for a protected activity. One or more of the
following statutes prohibit discrimination on these bases: 5 U.S.C.
2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C.
791, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16 and 2000ff.
    If you believe you have experienced unlawful discrimination on the
bases of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, retaliation,
genetic information, and/or disability, you must contact an Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor within 45 calendar days of the
alleged discriminatory action, or in the case of a personnel action,
within 45 calendar days of the effective date of the action. A
directory of EEO officers is available on the Departmental Office of
Civil Rights website at http://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights,
under the ``Contact Us'' tab. You will be offered the opportunity to
resolve the matter informally; if you are unable to resolve the matter
informally, you can file a formal complaint of discrimination with
USDOT (See, e.g., 29 CFR part 1614). Aggrieved parties who complete the
informal complaint process are provided with an electronic Individual
Complaint of Employment Discrimination Form. During the Public Health
Emergency, the Departmental Office of Civil Rights is only accepting
the Form electronically or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Once
the Public Health Emergency is over, you may choose to submit the Form
electronically, by mail to the EEO Complaints and Investigations
Division of the Departmental Office of Civil Rights at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W76-401, Washington, DC 20590, or by Fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
You may also contact the EEO Complaints and Investigations Division,
Departmental Office of Civil Rights by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> if you
need additional assistance.
    If you believe you experienced unlawful discrimination based on
age, you must either contact an EEO counselor as noted above, or file a
civil action in a United States district court under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act against the head of the alleged
discriminating agency. If you choose to file a civil action, you must
give notice of intent to sue to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action,
and not less than 30 days before filing a civil action. You may file
such notice in writing with the EEOC via mail at P.O. Box 77960,
Washington, DC 20013, the EEOC Public Portal https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/charge.cfm, hand delivery at 131 M St. NE, Washington, DC
20507, or by Fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If you are alleging discrimination based on marital status or
political affiliation, you may file a written discrimination complaint
with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Form OSC-14 is available
online at the OSC website http://www.osc.gov, under the tab to file a
complaint. Additionally, you can download the form from https://osc.gov/Resources/Pages/Forms.aspx. During the Public Health Emergency,
OSC is only accepting Form OST-14 electronically. Once the Public
Health Emergency is over, you may choose to submit the form
electronically or complete Form OSC-14 and mail it to the Complaints
Examining Unit, U.S. Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M Street NW,
Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505. You also have the option to call
the Complaints Examining Unit at 1-800-872-9855 for additional
assistance. In the alternative (or in some cases, in addition), you may
pursue a discrimination complaint by filing a grievance through the
USDOT administrative or negotiated grievance procedures, if such
procedures apply and are available.
    If you are alleging compensation discrimination pursuant to the
Equal Pay Act, and wish to pursue your allegations through the
administrative process, you must contact an EEO counselor within 45
calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action, as such complaints
are processed under EEOC's regulations at 29 CFR part 1614.
Alternatively, you may file a civil action in a court of competent
jurisdiction within two years, or if the violation is willful, three
years of the date of the alleged violation, regardless of whether you
pursued any administrative complaint processing. The filing of a
complaint or appeal pursuant to 29 CFR part 1614 shall not toll the
time for filing a civil action.

Whistleblower Protection Laws

    A USDOT employee with authority to take, direct others to take,
recommend, or approve any personnel action must not use that authority
to take, or fail to take, or threaten to take a personnel action
against an employee or applicant because of a disclosure of information
by that individual that is reasonably believed to evidence violations
of law, rule, or regulation; gross

mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a
substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless the
disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited by law and
such information is specifically required by Executive Order to be kept
secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign
affairs.
    Retaliation against a USDOT employee or applicant for making a
protected disclosure is prohibited (5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)). If you
believe you are a victim of whistleblower retaliation, you may file a
written complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M
Street NW, Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505 using Form OSC-11.
Alternatively, you may file online through the OSC website at http://www.osc.gov. You may also contact the USDOT Office of Inspector General
Hotline by phone at 1-800-424-8071, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by
mail at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg 7th Floor, Washington, DC
20590, or online at https://www.oig.dot.gov/hotline.

Disciplinary Actions

    Under existing laws, USDOT retains the right, where appropriate, to
discipline a USDOT employee who engages in conduct that is inconsistent
with Federal Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower Protection laws up to
and including removal from Federal service. If OSC initiates an
investigation under 5 U.S.C. 1214, USDOT must seek approval from the
Special Counsel to discipline employees for, among other activities,
engaging in prohibited retaliation (5 U.S.C. 1214). Nothing in the No
FEAR Act alters existing laws, or permits an agency to take unfounded
disciplinary action against a USDOT employee, or to violate the
procedural rights of a USDOT employee accused of discrimination.

Additional Information

    For more information regarding the No FEAR Act regulations, refer
to 5 CFR part 724, as well as the appropriate office(s) within your
agency (e.g., EEO/civil rights offices, human resources offices, or
legal offices). You can find additional information regarding Federal
antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection, and retaliation laws at
the EEOC website at http://www.eeoc.gov and the OSC website at http://www.osc.gov.

Existing Rights Unchanged

    Pursuant to section 205 of the No FEAR Act, neither the Act nor
this notice creates, expands, or reduces any rights otherwise available
to any employee, former employee, or applicant under the laws of the
United States, including the provisions of law specified in 5 U.S.C.
2302(d).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 27, 2020.
Charles E. James, Sr.,
Director, Departmental Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2020-24133 Filed 10-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11876-11878]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04973]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0328]

Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 25 individuals
for an exemption from the hearing requirement to operate commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0328 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.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    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 Federal Docket Management System (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: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. 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
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) 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. The 25 individuals
listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from
the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will
evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether
granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety
mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person:

    First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at
not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if
tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average
hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz,
1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the
audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard
(formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.

    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Eduardo Amaro

    Mr. Amaro, age 47, holds an operator's license in New Mexico.

Paul Aseka

    Mr. Aseka, age 36, holds an operator's license in Texas.

Thomas Buretz

    Mr. Buretz, age 54, holds a class A CDL in Florida.

Tye Cox

    Mr. Cox, age 28, holds an operator's license in Idaho.

James Dalrymple

    Mr. Dalrymple, age 61, holds a class A CDL in Arizona.

John Dumars

    Mr. Dumars, age 53, holds an operator's license in Florida.

Aaron Farley

    Mr. Farley, age 42, holds an operator's license in West Virginia.

Samuel Fernell

    Mr. Fernell, age 47, holds an operator's license in Ohio.

Heath Focken

    Mr. Focken, age 27, holds an operator's license in Nebraska.

 Michael Frutchey

    Mr. Frutchey, age 48, holds a chauffeur license in Michigan.

Gregg Glass

    Mr. Glass, age 53, holds an operator's license in Oregon.

Jaymes Haar

    Mr. Haar, age 28, holds a class A CDL in Iowa.

Michael McCarthy

    Mr. McCarthy, age 51, holds an operator's license in Minnesota.

Chad Meeker

    Mr. Meeker, age 39, holds a CDL in Michigan.

John Norton

    Mr. Norton, age 51, holds an operator's license in Michigan.

Taryn Peterson

    Mr. Peterson, age 28, holds an operator's license in Nebraska.

Stephen Paiz

    Mr. Paiz, age 31, holds an operator's license in New York.

David Quijano

    Mr. Quijano, age 43, holds an operator's license in Hawaii.

Brian Shoup

    Mr. Shoup, age 53, holds an operator's license in Ohio.

Ronald Sims

    Mr. Sims, age 65, holds a class A CDL in Florida.

Edward Spreen

    Mr. Spreen, age 35, holds an operator's license in Utah.

Fernando Valasquez

    Mr. Valasquez, age 31, holds an operator's license in Texas.

Kyle Voss

    Mr. Voss, age 26, holds an operator's license in Wisconsin.

Daron Washington

    Mr. Washington, age 50, holds a class A CDL in Illinois.

William Weeaks

    Mr. Weeaks, age 33, holds an operator's license in Oklahoma.

III. Request for Comments

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

IV. 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-2015-0328 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. FMCSA may issue a final determination any time after
the close of the comment period.

V. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-2015-0328 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: February 24, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-04973 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 219)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 58933-58936]
[DOCID:fr16no09-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0838]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Snohomish River, Steamboat
Slough, and Ebey Slough; Everett and Marysville, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the drawbridge operation
regulation for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad drawbridge
across Ebey Slough, mile 1.5, in Marysville, Washington so that two-
hour notice would be required to open the bridge from 3:30 p.m. to 7
a.m. every day. The bridge will be opened on signal at all other times.
The modification is necessary to allow Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroad to reduce staffing of the bridge during periods requiring
infrequent openings. The Coast Guard is also proposing additional minor
changes to the drawbridge operation regulations covering the Snohomish
River system to delete obsolete requirements.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before January 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2009-0838 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, Waterways Management
Branch, 13th Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking USCG-2009-0838, indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. If submit a comment online via
http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast
Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand
deliver or

mail your comment, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard
when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend
that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or
a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you
if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rules'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0838'' in the ``Keyword''
box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the
``Actions'' column.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them 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 the rule
based on them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-0838'' and click
``Search''. Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a
request using one of the four methods under ADDRESSES. Please explain
why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The proposed rule would modify the drawbridge operation regulation
for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad drawbridge across Ebey
Slough, mile 1.5, in Marysville, Washington so that two-hour notice
would be required to open the bridge from 3:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. every
day. The bridge will be opened on signal at all other times. The
railroad company requested this change to reduce staffing of the
drawbridge during periods requiring infrequent openings.
    The operating regulations currently in effect for the Ebey Slough
Railroad Bridge are found at 33 CFR part 117, subpart A, the general
operating regulations for drawbridges. The regulations require the
bridge to open promptly on signal at any time, which requires constant
presence of a drawtender.
    The modification would make the regulations consistent with most of
the other drawbridges in the lower Snohomish River system between
Marysville and Everett, Washington. In 2008 the draw opened 128 times
for vessels. For the first five months of 2009 the draw opened 95 times
for vessels. These records indicate that the bridge opens on average
less than once a day. Most vessels that require the swing span to open
are recreational vessels and occasionally tugboats.
    The Coast Guard is also proposing additional minor changes to the
drawbridge operation regulations covering the Snohomish River system to
delete obsolete requirements.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.1059 by adding a
drawbridge operation regulation for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroad drawbridge across Ebey Slough, mile 1.5, in Marysville,
Washington to require two-hour notice to open the bridge from 3:30 p.m.
to 7 a.m. every day. The bridge will be opened on signal at all other
times.
    The Coast Guard also proposes to change the regulations found in 33
CFR 117.1059 to delete obsolete requirements for the bridges over the
Snohomish River, Steamboat Slough, and Ebey Slough. The changes include
the deletion of special sound signals for the inability of the draw to
open. The standard danger signal of five short blasts in rapid
succession would be used instead as codified in the general regulations
for drawbridge operations at Part 117.5 of 33 Code of Federal
Regulations.
    The requirement to toll a bell in fog when draws are open for
vessel passage would also be deleted along with the requirement for
constant attendance of drawtenders during freshets at those bridges
that are otherwise required to have drawtenders present only to operate
upon notice to open.
    The foregoing are not general requirements at drawbridges. They
were established decades ago when commercial navigation, especially log
towing, was more frequent on the braided stream system of the lower
Snohomish. Improvements in navigation, such as radio and radar, have
greatly reduced the need for these measures. The constant attendance of
drawtenders during freshets is not needed because there is less traffic
in these waterways than when the original regulations were established.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard has made
this finding based on the fact that the changes proposed will have
little, if any, impact on the ability of vessels to transit the areas
affected.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following
entities, some of which

might be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels needing to
transit under the bridges affected. The rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
however, because the changes proposed will have little, if any, impact
on the ability of vessels to transit under those bridges.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how, and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge
Section, Waterways Management Branch, 13th Coast Guard District, at
(206) 220-7282. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
not designated this as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does
not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise Sec.  117.1059 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1059  Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Snohomish River,
Steamboat Slough, and Ebey Slough; Everett and Marysville, WA.

    (a) The draws of the twin, SR529 highway bridges across the
Snohomish River, mile 3.6, at Everett shall open on signal if at least
one-hour notice is given. Monday through Friday, notice for opening
shall be given to the drawtender at the SR529 highway bridge across
Ebey Slough, at

Marysville, and at all other times to the drawtender at the twin SR529
highway bridges at Everett.
    (b) The draw of the SR2 highway bridge across the Snohomish River,
mile 6.9, at Everett, shall open on signal if at least four hours
notice is given.
    (c) The draw of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad bridge
across the Snohomish River, mile 15.5, at Snohomish need not open for
the passage of vessels.
    (d) The draw of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad bridge
across Steamboat Slough, mile 1.0, near Marysville, shall open on
signal if at least four hours notice is given.
    (e) The draws of the twin, SR529 highway bridges across Steamboat
Slough, miles 1.1 and 1.2, near Marysville shall open on signal if at
least four hours notice is given. Monday through Friday, notice for
openings shall be given to the drawtender at the SR529 highway bridge
across Ebey Slough, at Marysville, and at all other times to the
drawtender at the twin SR529 highway bridges at Everett.
    (f) The draw of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad bridge
across Ebey Slough, mile 1.5, at Marysville shall open on signal if two
hours notice is given from 3:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. and promptly on signal
at all other times.
    (g) The draws of the SR529 highway bridge across Ebey Slough, mile
1.6, at Marysville, shall open on signal if at least one hour notice is
given. Monday through Friday, notice for openings shall be given to the
drawtender at this bridge and at all other times to the drawtender at
the SR529 highway bridges across the Snohomish River at Everett.

    Dated: October 15, 2009.
G.T. Blore,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E9-27355 Filed 11-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71452-71455]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29769]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-1010-201158; FRL-9493-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina:
Redesignation of the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir 1997 Annual Fine
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a request submitted on
December 18, 2009, and supplemented on December 22, 2010, from the
State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air Quality
(DAQ), to redesignate the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter the ``Hickory
Area'' or ``Area'') to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Hickory Area is
comprised of Catawba County in its entirety. EPA's approval of the
redesignation request is based on the determination that the State of
North Carolina has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment set
forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), including the determination
that the Hickory Area has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. Additionally,
EPA is approving a revision to the North Carolina State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to include the 1997 Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan
for the Hickory Area that contains the new motor vehicle emission
budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) for the years 2011
and 2021 for Catawba County and the mobile insignificance determination
for direct PM2.5 for the Hickory Area. This action also
approves the emissions inventory submitted with the maintenance plan.
Further, EPA is correcting a typographical error for the citation
associated with a previous adequacy determination the Agency made for
the NOX MVEBs for Catawba County and the mobile source
insignificance determination for direct PM2.5 for the
Hickory Area.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective December 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2009-1010. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madolyn Dominy or Joel Huey,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Madolyn
Dominy may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joel Huey may be reached by phone at (404)
562-9104 or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for the actions?
II. What are the actions EPA is taking?
III. Why is EPA taking these actions?
IV. What are the effects of these actions?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for the actions?

    On December 18, 2009, and supplemented on December 22, 2010, the
State of North Carolina, through NC DENR, submitted a request to
redesignate the Hickory Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and for EPA approval of the North Carolina SIP
revisions containing a maintenance plan for the Area. In an action
published on September 20, 2011 (76 FR 58210), EPA proposed approval of
North Carolina's plan for maintaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS, including the emissions inventory submitted pursuant to CAA
section 172(c)(3) and the NOX MVEBs for Catawba County and
the mobile insignificance determination for direct PM2.5 for
the Hickory Area as contained in the maintenance plan. At that time,
EPA also proposed to approve the redesignation of the Hickory Area to
attainment. Additional background for today's action is set forth in
EPA's September 20, 2011, proposal.
    The MVEBs, specified in kilograms per year (kg/yr), included in the
maintenance plan are as follows:

                      Table 1--Catwaba County MVEBs
                                 [kg/yr]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Conformity MVEB                    2011          2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.........................................    3,996,601     2,236,028
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its September 20, 2011, proposed action, EPA noted that the
adequacy public comment period on these MVEBs (as contained in North
Carolina's submittal) began on November 23, 2010, and closed on
December 23, 2010. No comments were received during the public comment
period. Thus, EPA deemed the new MVEBs for Catawba County and the
mobile source insignificance determination for PM2.5 in the
Hickory Area adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity on
May 2, 2011 (76 FR 24475).
    As stated in the September 20, 2011, proposal, this redesignation
addresses the Hickory Area's status solely with respect to the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, for which designations were finalized on
January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), and as supplemented on April 14, 2005 (70
FR 19844).
    EPA reviewed PM2.5 monitoring data from ambient
PM2.5 monitoring stations in the Hickory Area for the
PM2.5 seasons from 2007-2009. These data have been quality-
assured and are recorded in Air Quality System (AQS). The annual
arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations for 2006-2009 and the
3-year averages of these values (i.e., design values) are summarized in
Table 2. EPA has reviewed more recent data which indicate that the
Hickory Area

continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The design values
for 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 are also included in Table 2 and
demonstrate that the Hickory Area continues to meet the
PM2.5 NAAQS and that the ambient concentrations of
PM2.5 are continuing to decrease in the Area. Preliminary
monitoring data for the 2011 PM2.5 season indicate that the
Area is continuing to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
based on data from 2009-2011. These preliminary data are available in
the docket for today's action although they are not yet certified.

                         Table 2--Design Value Concentrations for the Hickory 1997 Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Area ([mu]g/m \3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual average PM2.5 concentrations  ([mu]g/m \3\)
               County                        Site name          Monitor ID   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2006          2007          2008          2009             2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catawba.............................  Hickory...............     37-035-0004        15.18         14.62         12.75         10.32               11.23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Three-year PM2.5 design values ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2006-2008
                                                     2007-2009                  2008-2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catawba.............................  Hickory...............     37-035-0004             14.2
                                                       12.6                          11.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the actions EPA is taking?

    In today's rulemaking, EPA is approving: (1) North Carolina's
emissions inventory which was submitted pursuant to CAA section
172(c)(3); (2) North Carolina's 1997 Annual PM2.5
maintenance plan (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for
redesignation to attainment status) for the Hickory Area, including
NOX MVEBs and mobile source insignificance determination for
direct PM2.5; and (3) North Carolina's redesignation request
to change the legal designation of the Hickory Area from nonattainment
to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The
maintenance plan is designed to demonstrate that the Hickory Area will
continue to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2021.
EPA's approval of the redesignation request is based on EPA's
determination that the Hickory Area meets the criteria for
redesignation set forth in CAA, sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A,
including EPA's determination that the Hickory Area has attained the
1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's analyses of North Carolina's
redesignation request, emissions inventory, and maintenance plan are
described in detail in the September 20, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR
58210).
    Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is approving
also includes 2011 and 2021 NOX MVEBs for Catawba County and
the mobile source insignificance determination for direct
PM2.5 in the Hickory Area. In this action, EPA is approving
these NOX MVEBs for Catawba County and the mobile source
insignificance determination for direct PM2.5 in the Hickory
Area for the purposes of transportation conformity. For required
regional emissions analysis years beyond 2011 and prior to 2021, the
applicable budgets will be the new 2011 NOX MVEBs. For
required regional emissions analysis years that involve 2021 or beyond,
the applicable budgets will be the new 2021 NOX MVEBs.
    EPA is also correcting an inadvertent typographical error for the
citation (in EPA's September 20, 2011, proposed rulemaking) associated
with EPA's adequacy determination for the NOX MVEBs for
Catawba County and the mobile source insignificance determination for
direct PM2.5 for the Hickory Area. In EPA's September 20,
2011 proposed rulemaking, EPA provides the citation for the adequacy
determination for the NOX MVEBs for Catawba County and the
mobile source insignificance determination for direct PM2.5
for the Hickory Area as 76 FR 24472 in the second to last paragraph in
the section entitled ``X. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request
and Maintenance Plan SIP Revision Including Approval of the
NOX MVEBs for 2011 and 2021 and the Direct PM2.5
Insignificance Determination for the Hickory Area.'' The correct
citation is 76 FR 24475. Through this action, EPA is making this
correction.

III. Why is EPA taking these actions?

    EPA has determined that the Hickory Area has attained the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and has also determined that all other
criteria for the redesignation of the Hickory Area from nonattainment
to attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS have been met.
See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). One of those requirements is that the
Hickory Area has an approved plan demonstrating maintenance of the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also taking final action to
approve the maintenance plan for the Hickory Area as meeting the
requirements of sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. In addition,
EPA is approving the emissions inventory as meeting the requirements of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Finally, EPA is approving the new
NOX MVEBs for the years 2011 and 2021 for Catawba County and
the mobile source insignificance determination for direct
PM2.5 for the Hickory Area as contained in North Carolina's
maintenance plan because these MVEBs and the insignificance
determination are consistent with maintenance of the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 standard in the Hickory Area. The detailed rationale
for EPA's determinations and actions are set forth in the proposed
rulemaking and in other discussion in this final rulemaking.

IV. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation
of Catawba County in its entirety from nonattainment to attainment for
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is modifying the regulatory
table in 40 CFR 81.334 to reflect a designation of attainment for these
full and partial counties. EPA is also approving, as a revision to the
North Carolina SIP, North Carolina's plan for maintaining the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Hickory Area through 2021. The
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy possible
future violations of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and
establishes NOX MVEBs for the years 2011 and 2021 for
Catawba County and an insignificance determination for direct
PM2.5 for the Hickory Area. Additionally, this action
approves the emissions inventory for the Hickory Area pursuant to
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the redesignation and change
the legal designation of Catawba County in its entirety from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is also approving into the North Carolina SIP the 1997Annual
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Hickory Area, which includes
the new NOX MVEBs of 3,996,601 kg/yr for 2011 and 2,236,028
kg/yr for 2021 for Catawba County. Further, EPA is approving the
insignificance determination for direct PM2.5 for the
Hickory Area.
    Additionally, EPA is approving the 2008 emissions inventory for the
Hickory Area pursuant to section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. In a previous
action, EPA found the new Catawba County NOX MVEBs and the
mobile source direct PM2.5 insignificance determination for
the Hickory Area adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity
(76 FR 24475, May 2, 2011). Within 24 months from the effective date of
EPA's adequacy determination, the transportation partners will need to
demonstrate conformity to the new NOX MVEBs pursuant to 40
CFR 93.104(e) and will need to document the mobile source direct
PM2.5 insignificance determination for the PM2.5
NAAQS in future conformity determinations (76 FR 24475).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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, 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 these reasons, these actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory action subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Do 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).

In addition, this final rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 17, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks.

    Dated: November 7, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1770(e) is amended by adding two new entries ``1997
Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for the Hickory, North
Carolina Area (Catawba County)'' and ``1997 Annual PM2.5
Maintenance Plan for the Hickory, North Carolina Area--MOVES Update''
at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    State effective    EPA approval
             Provision                    date             date                Federal Register citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan         12/18/09         11/18/11  [Insert citation of publication].
 for the Hickory, North Carolina
 Area (Catawba County).
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan         12/22/10         11/18/11  [Insert citation of publication].
 for the Hickory, North Carolina
 Area--MOVES Update.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.334, the table entitled ``North Carolina--
PM2.5 (Annual NAAQS)'' is amended under ``Hickory-Morganton-
Lenoir, NC'' by revising the entry for ``Catawba County'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.334  North Carolina.

* * * * *

                  North Carolina--PM2.5 (Annual NAAQS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Designation a
       Designated area       -------------------------------------------
                                     Date 1                 Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catawba County..............  This action is        Attainment.
                               effective 11/18/11.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
  otherwise specified.
1 This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-29769 Filed 11-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 11452-11454]
[DOCID:fr03mr08-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57383; File No. SR-BSE-2008-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 5, To Amend the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange Related to
Obvious Error Procedures

February 26, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\

notice is hereby given that on January 29, 2008, the Boston Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or ``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
substantially prepared by the Exchange. On February 21, 2008, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal. On February 22, 2008,
the Exchange submitted Amendment Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and withdrew
Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the proposal. On February 26, 2008, the
exchange withdrew Amendment No. 4 and submitted Amendment No. 5 to the
proposal.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 5 replaces and supersedes the original filing
and all previous amendments in their entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes amending the Boston Options Exchange
(``BOX'') Rules related to Obvious Error procedures. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.bostonstock.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The BSE seeks to amend the BOX Rules \4\ to modify the process for
determining whether to ``adjust or bust'' certain trades on the BOX
market. The Exchange believes that modifying this process will help to
better ensure a fair and orderly market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have
the meanings prescribed under the BOX Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, BOX has an established process whereby, in the event
that a suspected Obvious Error has occurred during trading on the BOX
market, a request for review may be made by one or both of the parties
involved. This request for review notifies the Market Regulation Center
(``MRC'') of the existence of a suspected erroneous transaction and
initiates a review process. If the MRC determines that the transaction
does in fact represent an Obvious Error, the transaction is either
adjusted or busted. Depending on the parties involved in the
transaction, the adjustments are either set according to pre-determined
increments or by mutual agreement between the parties.
    The Exchange states that, currently, the MRC, as defined in the BOX
Rules \5\ as the ``Exchange's facilities for surveilling and regulating
the conduct of business for options on BOX,'' is involved in these
Obvious Error requests and determinations. This amendment to the BOX
Rules will substitute the BOX Market Operations Center (``MOC'') \6\
for the MRC as the entity that first receives these Obvious Error
requests. The MOC is already the primary contact for Options
Participants when communicating with the BOX market regarding trading
matters. Under this proposal, the MOC, as the primary contact, will
promptly notify the MRC when an Obvious Error request is received,
since the MRC will continue to be the body that makes adjust or bust
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Section 1 of Chapter I of the BOX Rules.
    \6\ This proposal will also add the MOC to the definitions
section of the BOX Rules. See, Section 1 of Chapter I of the BOX
Rules. The remainder of the changes to the definition section fall
into two categories. The first is switching the current Sections 31
and 32 so that they are in alphabetical order. The second is, after
inserting the MOC as a definition, renumbering the remaining
definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the current BOX Obvious Error rules refer to
transactions involving Market Makers ``on BOX.'' The proposed amendment
to the BOX Rules will remove the language ``on BOX.'' This proposed
change would provide an additional avenue of relief for non-BOX market
makers, resulting in the Obvious Error Rules applying not only to BOX
Market Makers, but also to market makers on other exchanges whose
orders are designated with a market maker account type in the BOX
Trading Host. Currently, according to Section 20(d)(ii)(1) of Chapter V
of the BOX Rules, only BOX Market Makers involved in an erroneous
transaction with another BOX Market Maker may avail themselves to the
pre-determined obvious error Theoretical Price plus or minus adjustment
levels. This amendment, if approved, would maintain and expand the
choices available to a non-BOX market maker involved in an erroneous
transaction. Just as a BOX Market Maker, a non-BOX market maker would
have the choice of agreeing with the counter party to bust the
transaction, agreeing to adjust to an agreed upon price for the
transaction, or now having the transaction adjusted to the pre-
determined levels.
    This amendment to the BOX Rules will also establish an additional
course of action if it is determined that an Obvious Error has
occurred. The current BOX Rules allow for an adjustment in the
transaction price where both parties to the transaction are market
makers. Alternatively, the BOX Rules call for a bust of the transaction
if at least one party to the transaction is a market maker on BOX,
unless both parties agree to an adjustment price and notify the MRC.
The proposed amendment to the Obvious Error Rule will render this
particular scenario applicable only when ``neither'' party to the
transaction is a market maker. Under the scenario where neither of the
parties involved in the obviously erroneous transaction is a market
maker, a bust of the transaction is believed to be the proper course of
action, absent an agreement to an adjusted price for the transaction.
    The additional course of action, as proposed, will now be available
to the MRC when one party to the transaction is not a market maker and
the other party is a market maker. The Exchange believes that affording
a non-market maker party the opportunity to choose between busting the
transaction or adjusting it according to the pre-determined increments,
as set forth in the Obvious Error Rule, will better protect the non-
market maker party in the event of obviously erroneous transactions.
The establishment of this option is intended to protect against
scenarios where a non-market making party, perhaps a Public Customer,
enters into a transaction with a market maker. Under the current rules,
if this transaction is determined to be an Obvious Error, the trade
will be busted unless the parties agree to an adjustment price. If the
Public Customer does not want the trade busted but, nonetheless, cannot
agree to an adjusted price with the market maker, then the trade will
still be busted. The Exchange believes that this could expose the
Public Customer to unintended positions and risk, perhaps in the
equities markets, where this particular options transaction was
intended to hedge against. The Exchange believes that, by providing
access to the pre-established Obvious Error adjustment increments,

some of this risk should be alleviated or eliminated for the non-market
maker party by allowing the transaction to be adjusted rather than
busted.
    The Exchange believes that the availability of the pre-determined
adjustment increments should provide non-market maker parties with
added assurances that, in the case of an obviously erroneous
transaction and at their election, the transaction will be adjusted
rather than automatical busted, as provided in the current Rule. While
this should provide an added protective feature for non-market makers,
it should not expose market makers to any additional risk or decrease
the protections that they are already afforded in the BOX Rules. A
market maker's transaction already has these pre-determined adjustment
increments applied to their trades with other market makers. Thus, this
proposal would merely extend the application of the pre-determined
adjustment increments to another party that a market maker could trade
with via the BOX Trading Host.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the BOX Rules
would result in greater flexibility in determining the outcome of
erroneous transactions within the BOX Trading Host. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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 by the Exchange with
respect to the proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve the proposed rule change; or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BSE-2008-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2008-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying 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 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-BSE-2008-05 and should be
submitted on or before March 24, 2008.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3959 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1453]
[DOCID:fr11ja10-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-
2007-28695; FMCSA-2007-29019]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 23 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><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.

Background

    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. The comment
period ended on December 7, 2009 (74 FR 57553).

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 23 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Robert W. Bequeaith, William R. Braun, Lloyd K.
Brown, Kecia D. Clark-Welch, Tommy R. Crouse, Ben W. Davis, Charles A.
DeKnikker, Sr., Earl M. Frederick, Loren H. Geiken, John N. Guilford,
John E. Halcomb, Rayford R. Harper, Michael A. Hershberger, Patrick J.
Hogan, Todd A. McBrain, Richard K. Mell, Amilton T. Monteiro, David G.
Oakley, John S. Olsen, Robert G. Owens, Nathan D. Peterson, Thomas J.
Prusik and Glen W. Sterling.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
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.

    Issued on: December 22, 2009.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-201 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: March 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 13106-13107]
[DOCID:fr20mr07-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-344-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Tariff
Filing

March 14, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 9, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 134 and
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 135F, to be effective April 8, 2007.
    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to update
the lists of Buyers in Section 9 of Rate Schedule WSS and Section 8.2
of Rate Schedule WSS-Open Access.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or

protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5017 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P