[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16265-16267]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06794]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0072]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 40 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or

greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for
these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted December 15, 2015. The exemptions
expire on December 15, 2017.

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. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/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.
    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.

II. Background

    On November 12, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (80 FR 70060). That notice listed 40 applicants' case
histories. The 40 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 40 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 40
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, aphakia, chronic optic neuropathy,
complete loss of vision, corneal scar, macular scar, macular
toxoplasmosis, optic atrophy, optic nerve atrophy, phthisical cornea,
prosthetic eye, refractive amblyopia, retinal detachment, and
strabismic amblyopia. In most cases, their eye conditions were not
recently developed. Thirty of the applicants were either born with
their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The 10 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of 6 to 41 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 40 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 3 to 51
years. In the past three years, 1 driver was involved in a crash, and 1
driver was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the November 12, 2015
notice (80 FR 70060).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers

demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a
conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying
conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to
have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate
safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 40 applicants, 1 driver was involved in a crash, and 1 driver was
convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a
record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 40 applicants listed in the notice of
November 12, 2015 (80 FR 70060).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 40 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 40 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10):

John W. Adams (TN)
David R. Alford (UT)
Randy S. Asher (NE)
Steven W. Barrows (OR)
Steven A. Blinco (MT)
Charles W. Bradley (SC)
Ricky A. Bray (AR)
Ryan M. Coelho (RI)
Travis R. Cook (KS)
Larry P. Davis (MO)
Donald S. Fries (PA)
Kerrie K. Furbish (ME)
Jerry W. Gibson (TX)
Trevor H. Hilton (IL)
Michael D. Judy (KS)
Karen L. Kelly (DE)
Joel H. Kohagen (IA)
Kelly K. Kremer (OR)
Edward R. Lockhart (MS)
Joshua L. Marasek (TX)
Rodolfo Martinez, Jr. (TX)
Arthur J. McClintic (MI)
Dale A. McCoy (ME)
Gregory G. Miller (OH)
Zack E. Minielly (GA)
Tobias G. Olsen (NY)
Elroy Perkins (MS)
Roy C. Rogers (WV)
Michael P. Rydzinski (MI)
Dale L. Schneider (IA)
Keith R. Seabaugh (MO)
Robert G. Seils (NY)
Randall C. Stephens (TN)
Dale L. Stewart (MI)
Warren S. Supulski (NC)
Paul J. Vines (AL)
Hany A. Wagieh (NJ)
Charles W. Williamson (OK)
Gregory A. Woodward (OR)
Alton R. Young III (MS)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: March 16, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-06794 Filed 3-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 57090-57091]
[DOCID:fr17se10-141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62892; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-119]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Relating to Limitation of Exchange
Liability

September 10, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on September 1, 2010 NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\4\ proposes to amend Exchange Rule 652, titled
Limitation of Exchange Liability and Reimbursement of Certain Expenses,
to require member organizations on the Exchange's trading floor to
procure and maintain liability insurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, on the Commission's website at
http://www.sec.gov/, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 652 titled
Limitation of Exchange Liability and Reimbursement of Certain Expenses
to require member organizations conducting business on the Exchange's
trading floor to procure and maintain liability insurance. The Exchange
is proposing this amendment to limit the liability of the Exchange and
obtain reimbursement for any action or proceeding brought against the
Exchange.
    Legal proceedings can significantly divert staff resources away
from the Exchange's regulatory and business purposes. In addition,
these proceedings often require the Exchange to secure outside counsel,
a costly undertaking. The Exchange believes that establishing a rule
that limits the Exchange's liability may reduce non merit-based or
vexatious legal proceedings against the Exchange by member litigants
and help protect against the Exchange's resources being unnecessarily
diverted from regulatory and business objectives, thus strengthening
the overall organization.
    Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to require that member
organizations located on the Exchange's trading floor procure and
maintain liability insurance. The insurance would provide defense and
indemnity coverage for the member organization, any person associated
with the member organization and the Exchange for any action or
proceeding brought, or claim made, to impose liability upon the member
organization, associated person or the Exchange which results from the
member organization's or associated person's conduct.
    The Exchange has a physical trading floor where certain Exchange
member organizations physically conduct their trading activities. The
Exchange does not intend this amendment to provide relief associated
with financial loss related to buying and selling securities. The
insurance coverage is intended to provide coverage to the Exchange for
its sole, concurrent, or contributory negligence or other wrongdoing
connected to a claim arising from the member organization's or
associated person's conduct.
    The Exchange would require that the member organization name the
Exchange as an additional insured on the insurance policy by
endorsement. The Exchange would retain the same rights under the
insurance coverage as the named insured. The Exchange would be entitled
to the full policy limits. The member organization would be required to
maintain insurance with a limit that is not less than $1,000,000
without erosion by defense costs.\5\ The insurance would indicate that
it is primary to any insurance maintained by the Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In other words, the $1,000,000 requirement would be in
addition to legal costs.
    \6\ This requirement applies to the endorsement on the policy
and would require coverage to be sought under the member's policy
prior to any Exchange policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, each member organization located on the trading floor
would be required to provide a certificate of insurance to be issued
directly to the Exchange demonstrating the insurance was procured and
is maintained. Each member organization would be required to furnish a
copy of the insurance policy upon request as well.
    The Exchange incurs cost related to the conduct of Exchange member
organizations utilizing the Exchange's facilities on the trading floor
to conduct business. The Exchange is seeking to shift the burden
arising from actions or proceedings brought, or claims made, to impose
liability on the Exchange back to the member organization.
    The Exchange also proposes to expand the language in Rule 652 to
apply the rule to individuals of the Exchange, specifically officers,
directors and employees. The Exchange believes that this language
serves to clarify that individuals serving as officers, directors or
employees are also the subject of Rule 652.
    The Exchange proposes to require members to procure such insurance
by December 31, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal 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, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by requiring member organizations physically located on the trading
floor to procure and maintain insurance. The proposed amendment would
assist the Exchange in limiting its resources [sic] which can be easily
diverted to defending litigation claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that member organizations that are physically
located

on the Exchange's trading facilities are already subject to rules and
procedures that are separate and apart from member organizations that
are not located on the Exchange's trading floor. While the Exchange
does have rules which govern a member organization's order and decorum
while on the Exchange's trading floor, the Exchange believes that
requiring such member organizations to also obtain insurance coverage
to protect the Exchange from claims resulting from their own conduct is
not an undue burden.
    The Exchange's trading floor environment must be free from conduct
that could distract or interfere with market activity as well as
conduct which could deplete the Exchange's resources and divert staff
when dealing with claims and litigation that results from the conduct
of a member organization or associated person of that member
organization. The Exchange believes that this proposal will conserve
Exchange resources and provide additional coverage for member
organizations as well because they are also subject to the coverage.
    The Exchange believes that amending Rule 652 to add officers,
directors and employees in addition to the Exchange serves to further
clarify Rule 652 by making clear that the word Exchange includes such
individuals.

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 that is 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 either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove 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-Phlx-2010-119 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-119. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and
copying at the Exchange's principal office. 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 publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-119 and should be submitted on
or before October 8, 2010.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23194 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 1412]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00401]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14722-000]

Mill and Main Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On October 16, 2015, AS Clock Tower Owner, LLC, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Mill
and Main Hydroelectric Project (Mill and Main Project) to be located on
the Assabet River, near Maynard, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The
sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing 9.5-foot-
high, 170-foot-long granite block Ben Smith dam; (2) the existing
18.75-acre Ben Smith dam impoundment with a storage capacity of 475
acre-feet and a normal water surface elevation of 177 feet above mean
sea level (msl); (3) an existing 1,600-foot-long power canal leading to
an existing gatehouse at the upstream end of the existing 18.3-acre
Mill Pond impoundment with a storage capacity of 130 acre-feet and a
normal water surface elevation of 176 feet msl; (4) the existing
masonry Mill Pond dam; (5) an existing 7-foot-diameter, 49-foot-long
penstock; (6) an existing masonry powerhouse containing one turbine-
generator unit with an installed capacity of 290-kilowatts; (7) two
300-foot-long masonry tailraces; (8) an existing 480-volt transmission
line and a 13.8 kV step-up transformer to interconnect the project with
the Clock Tower Place; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The estimated
annual generation of the Mill and Main Project would be about 1,241
megawatt-hours. The existing Ben Smith and Mill dams and appurtenant
works are owned by AS Clock Tower Owner, LLC.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Kurt W. Saraceno, AS Clock Tower Owner, LLC,
c/o Saracen Properties. 41 Seyon Street, Suite 200, Waltham, MA 02453;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> x2710.
    FERC Contact: Patrick Crile; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14722-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14722) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: January 6, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00401 Filed 1-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NSPS for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT) ( Renewal)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NSPS for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT) ( Renewal)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT) were proposed on January 8, 1986, and were promulgated on January 29, 1988. These standards apply to the following facilities in industrial surface coating operations that apply coatings to plastic parts for use in the manufacture of business machines: each spray booth that applies prime coats, color coats, texture coats or touch up coats. The standards apply to those facilities that commenced construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance; and are required, in general, of all sources subject to NSPS.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated State or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Regional Office.

Approximately 10 sources are currently subject to the standard, and the number of sources subject to the regulation is expected to either remain the same or to slightly decrease during the next three years. This estimate is based on an Agency review of the industry during development of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, another standard that applies to the same sources, and the previously approved Information Collection Request ( ICR). The information collection will involve 10 respondents, 978 ( rounded) burden hours, and $ 60,326 ( rounded).

OMB approved the currently active ICR without any " Terms of Clearance." 2 2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which ( taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. Section 111( a)( l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

. . . ( A) establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, volatile organic compounds ( VOC) emissions from the surface coating of plastic parts for business machines cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of VOCs from the surface coating of plastic parts for business machines requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of VOCs from facilities subject to subpart TTT 3 are the result of operation of the industrial surface coating operations that apply coatings to plastic parts for use in the manufacture of business machines: each spray booth that applies prime coats, color coats, texture coats or touch up coats. The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the standards are being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The standards restrict emissions to no more than 1.5 kilograms of VOCs per liter of coating solids applied for prime and color coats, and to no more than 2.3 kilograms of VOCs per liter of coating solids applied for texture and touch up coats. The quarterly and semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NSPS continue to achieve compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with these standards, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT.

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated the information is sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated State or local agency. If a State or local agency has adopted their own similar regulation to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2002. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS) conducted an extensive review of and consultations with industry during development of the National Emission Standards 4 for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products. Results from that activity were used in preparation of this ICR.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the required standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB in 5 CFR 1320.6.

3( f) Confidentiality The required information has been determined not to be confidential. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are industrial coating operations that apply surface coatings to plastic parts for business machines, that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after January 8, 1986. The SIC codes for the respondents affected by the standards are SIC ( United States Standard Industrial Classification) 2851, 3079, 3471, 3573, 3574, 3579, 3661, and 3861 which correspond to the NAICS ( The North American Industry Classification System) 32551, 332813, 339942, 334518, 333313, 33421, 334418, 333315, and 325992. The broad range of SIC codes covered by the standards reflects the fact that some business machine manufacturers are highly integrated and perform the actual spray coating of plastic parts on site, while others purchase plastic parts that have already been coated at a specialized coating facility. 5 4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR part 60 subpart TTT.

A source must make the following reports:

Reports for NSPS subpart TTT Construction/ reconstruction 60.7( a)( 1)

Actual startup 60.7( a)( 3)

Initial performance test results 60.8( a)

Initial performance test 60.8( d)

Physical or operational change 60.7( a)( 4)

Statement of compliance ( semiannual) 60.724( b)( 2)

Excess emissions / noncompliance ( quarterly) 60.724( b)( 1)

A source must maintain the following records:

Recordkeeping for NSPS subpart TTT Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative 60.7( b)

Monthly performance test measures and calculations 60.724( a)

Records are required to be retained for two years. These records must be kept onsite. 60.724( d)

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 24 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above. 6 Respondent Activities Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

This collection does not make use of automated, mechanical, or other technical collection techniques. Respondents will most likely submit hard copy reports, although some may submit electronic versions. The rule allows records to be maintained in hard copy or electronic format to allow flexibility and minimize burden.

5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System ( AFS) database. 7 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and to note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The quarterly, and semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for more than 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and State regulatory agencies, and EPA Regional Offices and EPA Headquarters. EPA and its delegated authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for two years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The recordkeeping and reporting requirements were selected within the context of a small collection of process equipment and reflect the burden on small businesses. The impact on small businesses was accounted for in the regulation development. The requirements reflect the burden on small businesses. For the most part, smaller facilities will be using the same type of coating each month, and using the same spray application equipment. Consequently, the calculations for the monthly performance tests will be fairly repetitive and not as time consuming as for larger sources which may use a much wider variety of coating types and application equipment of variable transfer efficiencies, etc. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small businesses.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Industry Burden  NSPS for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT).

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR. The 8 individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated at 978 ( rounded) person hours. These hours are based on an Agency review of the industry during development of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products which are standards that apply to the same industry, Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, and the previously approved ICR.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses labor rates of $ 61.66 per hour. This rate is from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2002, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rate is from column 1, " Total compensation." The rate has been increased by 110% ($ 61.66 = $ 29.36 + 110%) to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the standards are labor costs. There are no capital/ startup or operation and maintenance costs. There is no requirement for the installation of continuous monitoring equipment, or specialized testing devices. Monthly performance tests involve calculations only, and rely on data that is either readily available or routinely collected as part of normal operations. Most of the measurements and calculations required for monthly performance tests under this standard are consistent with the respondents' normal recordkeeping practices. Semiannual reports are essentially a statement that all performance tests showed the source to be in compliance with the emissions limitations. Quarterly reports are required only of those sources found to be in violation of the emission standards, and are required only during the particular quarter in which a performance test indicated a violation. 9 ( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the regulations are labor costs. There are no capital/ startup or operation and maintenance costs.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only Federal costs are user costs associated with analysis of the reported information. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AFS program. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program.

The average annual Federal Government cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 3,612 ( rounded). [ See Table 2 in Section 6( e)]. This cost is based on an average hourly rate of a GS 12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total of $ 39.49. This rate is from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2003 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Annual Agency Burden and Cost.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Approximately 10 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and the number of sources subject to the regulation is expected to either remain the same or to slightly decrease during the next three years.

Respondent Universe and Number of Responses Per Year Regulation Citation ( A) Average Number of New Responde nts per Year ( B) Number of Reports for New Sources ( C) Number of Existing Respondent s ( D) Number of Reports for Existing Sources ( F) Number of Respondents that keep records but do not submit reports ( E) Total Annual Responses ( AxB)+ ( CxD)+ F NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT 0 4 10 2 2 ( semiannual) 4 ( quarterly) 0 28 The number of total respondents is 10. This number is the sum of column A and column C of the Respondent Universe and Number of Responses Per Year table. This represents the number of existing sources plus the number of new sources averaged over the three year period ( i. e., the total of the number of new respondents over the three year period divided by three years). It is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a) Number of respondents. 10 The total annual response is 28. This number is in column E of the Respondent Universe and Number of Responses Per Year table above. It is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total Annual Responses.

The total annual labor costs are $ 60,326 ( rounded). This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  NSPS for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT).

Note that the total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 0. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. These costs are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents are attached.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment. The adjustment decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to a decrease in the number of sources based on a more accurate accounting of the sources subject to this standard.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 35 ( rounded) hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 11 burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA 2003 0042, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is ( 202) 566 1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OECA 2003 0042 and OMB Control Number 2060 0162 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49911-49912]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17311]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2010-0034]

Port Authority Trans-Hudson's Request To Amend Its Positive Train
Control Safety Plan and Positive Train Control System

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on August
2, 2022, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) submitted a request for
amendment (RFA) to its FRA-approved Positive Train Control Safety Plan
(PTCSP). As this RFA may involve a request for FRA's approval of
proposed material modifications to an FRA-certified positive train
control (PTC) system, FRA is publishing this notice and inviting public
comment on the railroad's RFA to its PTCSP.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by September 1, 2022. FRA
may consider comments received after that date to the extent
practicable and without delaying implementation of valuable or
necessary modifications to a PTC system.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this host
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2010-0034. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports. All comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov;
this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, Title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host
railroad's PTC system complies with Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be
operated in revenue service. Before making

certain changes to an FRA-certified PTC system or the associated FRA-
approved PTCSP, a host railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval
of, an RFA to its PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021.
    Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register and invite public comment in
accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an RFA includes a request for
approval of a material modification of a signal and train control
system. Accordingly, this notice informs the public that, on August 2,
2022, PATH submitted an RFA to its PTCSP for its Communication Based
Train Control System (CBTC) and that RFA is available in Docket No.
FRA-2010-0034.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on PATH's RFA to its
PTCSP by submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of
this railroad's RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted
within the timeline specified in this notice and to the extent
practicable, without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to a PTC system. See 49 CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR
236.1011(e). Under 49 CFR 236.1021, FRA maintains the authority to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny a railroad's RFA to its PTCSP
at FRA's sole discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-17311 Filed 8-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26364]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12282]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0300]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River at Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Burnside Bridge across the
Willamette River, mile 12.4, at Portland, OR. The deviation is
necessary to accommodate bridge repairs and upgrades. This deviation
allows the double bascule bridge to operate one side only in single
leaf mode.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on July 1, 2018 to 4
p.m. on October 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0300 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Multnomah County, Oregon owns the Burnside
Bridge, crossing the Willamette River, mile 12.4, at Portland, OR, and
has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule. The
requested deviation is to accommodate bridge repairs and upgrades. To
facilitate this maintenance, the draw of the subject bridge will be
authorized to operate in single leaf and open the east leaf of the span
only. The bridge is also authorized to maintain the west leaf in the
closed-to-navigation position to marine traffic, and reduce the
vertical clearance up to ten feet. This deviation period is from 7 a.m.
on July 1, 2018 to 4 p.m. on October 13, 2018.
    The Burnside Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 41 feet in the
closed-to-navigation position referenced to Columbia River Datum 0.0,
and the west leaf will be reduced to 31 feet with scaffolding
installed. The horizontal clearance for an east leaf opening will be
100 feet. The normal operating schedule is in 33 CFR 117.897. Waterway
usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging
from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. The Coast Guard
contacted all known users of the Willamette River for comment, and we
received no objections for this deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation
position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open the
east side of the span only for emergencies, and there is no immediate
alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will inform the
users of the waterway, through our Local and Broadcast Notices to
Mariners, of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that
vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the
temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 23, 2018.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-12282 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Update Phase IA - Supplemental Simulation Results">
<META name="creation-date" content="18/09/2009 09:19:10 ">
<TITLE>Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Update Phase IA - Supplemental Simulation Results</TITLE>

Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Update

Phase IA

Supplemental Simulation Results

Joshua T. Cohen, Ph.D.

Harvard Center for Risk Analysis

December 26, 2006

-
1

Table of Contents
1
Introduction .......................................................................................... 3

2
Methodology......................................................................................... 3

2.1
Changes to the Base Case ........................................................................... 3

2.1.1
Antemortem Inspection............................................................................ 3

2.1.2
Recycling of Poultry Litter....................................................................... 4

2.2
Alternative Scenarios.................................................................................. 5

2.3
Sensitivity Analyses.................................................................................... 6

-
2

1
Introduction
In response to the discovery of a BSE-infected cow in Washington State in December
2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS)
commissioned the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA) to use the Harvard Bovine
Spongiform Encephelopathy (BSE) simulation model to investigate the impact of alternative
measures to mitigate exposure of the human population to the BSE agent.  FSIS released the
HCRA analysis in October 2005 and presented the findings of that analysis at a technical meeting
open to the public in July 2006.  FSIS subsequently received public comments on the HCRA
analysis.  As part of its response to those public comments, FSIS contracted for further analysis
using the Harvard BSE simulation model.  This report describes those analyses.
2
Methodology
2.1
Changes to the Base Case
The base case was revised as follows:
•
Antemortem inspection – FSIS decreased the assumed probability that animals
with clinical signs of BSE would be detected at antemortem inspection (Section
2.1.1)
•
Poultry litter pathway for feed contamination – The simulation has been revised
so that it now explicitly models contamination of cattle feed as a result of the
recycling of poultry litter (Section 2.1.2).
2.1.1
Antemortem Inspection
Table 1 summarizes changes made to assumptions related to antemortem inspection.
Assumption
Old
New
value
value
Probability of detecting BSE signs in animals that have
95%
50%
reached the clinical stage of the disease – Ambulatory
Probability of detecting BSE signs in animals that have
85%
25%
reached the clinical stage of the disease – Non-ambulatory
-
3

1
2.1.2
Recycling of Poultry Litter
The simulation model assumes that a user-specified proportion of the meat and bone meal
(MBM) produced is used in poultry feed, and a user-specified proportion of poultry litter is
administered to cattle.  The model assumes that 100% of infectivity in poultry feed ends up in
poultry litter.  As a result, the proportion of MBM infectivity that ends up in cattle feed via this
pathway is the product of the proportion of MBM sent to poultry feed producers, and the
proportion of poultry litter that is used in cattle feed.
Table 2 details the assumed disposition of MBM, based on the type of MBM producer
and the type of material.
Table 2

Disposition of MBM

Type of Renderer and Type of MBM
Prohibited
Non-
Mixed Type
Ingredient
Prohibited
Ingredient
Renderer
Ingredient
Renderer
Renderer
P
NP
(b)
P
NP
P
NP
P Feed Producer (excluding poultry feed)
50%
50%
NA
(a)
50%
50%
50%
NP Feed Producer
0%
10%
NA
(a)
10%
0%
10%
Mixed Feed Producer
5%
10%
NA
(a)
10%
5%
10%
Poultry Feed Producer
40%
0%
NA
(a)
0%
40%
0%
Out (Unavailable to U.S. Cattle)
5%
30%
NA
(a)
30%
5%
30%
Abbreviations: P – prohibited, NP – non-prohibited
Notes:
(a)
This analysis assumes no product from a non-prohibited renderer is labeled as prohibited
(b)
Prohibited ingredient renderers may produce feed that is mislabeled as non-prohibited.
Of the infectivity that ends up in poultry feed and ultimately in poultry litter, this analysis
assumes that 1% is used in cattle feed.
This section draws on material prepared by Joshua Cohen (Tufts-New England Medical Center) for the
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
-
4

1

2.2
Alternative Scenarios
Because assumptions embedded in the base case influence the alternative scenarios,
USDA FSIS re-ran the simulation for several of the scenarios central to its original evaluation.
The October 2005 Harvard BSE Update includes the following three scenarios, all of which have
been re-run.
•
USDA A – Ban on slaughter for human consumption of all non-ambulatory
disabled cattle (Federal Register: January 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 7 Pages
1861-1874)).
•
USDA B – Prohibition for human consumption of brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal
ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column, and dorsal root ganglia of cattle 30
months of age or older, as well as small intestine and tonsils of all cattle (Federal
Register: January 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 7 Page 1861-1874)).
•
USDA A and USDA B.
In addition to these scenarios, the following additional alternative scenarios have been evaluated
using the Harvard BSE simulation model:
•
USDA B12 and USDA B24– Identical to USDA B, except that the prohibition
applies to animals 12 months of age and older, or 24 months of age and older,
respectively.
•
USDA B, 90% compliance, 95% compliance, and 99% compliance  – Identical to
USDA B, except that compliance is assumed to 90%, 95%, or 99%, respectively.
Table 3 details the proportion of key tissue groups assumed to be allowed into the
human food supply.
-
5

Table 3

Assumed Proportion of Tissue Allowed In Human Food

USDA Scenario B

Tissue
Base Case
90%
95%
99%
100%
All Ages
Gut (all ages)
Tonsils (all ages)
0.01
0.0046
0.001
0.00046
0.0005
0.00023
0.0001
0.000046
0
0
Age
≥≥≥≥
30 Months
Brain
Spinal Cord
Eyes
AMR Meat
Beef on bone
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.98
0.25
0.001
0.001
0.0001
0.098
0.025
0.0005
0.0005
0.00005
0.049
0.0125
0.0001
0.0001
0.00001
0.0098
0.0025
0
0
0
0
0
2.3
Sensitivity Analyses
Because assumptions embedded in the base case influence the sensitivity analyses,
USDA FSIS re-ran the simulation for several of the key analyses.  The October 2005 Harvard
BSE Update includes the following three sensitivity analyses, all of which have been re-run.
•
Sensitivity 1 – Mislabeling and contamination – We have revised the base case
values for these parameters to take into account new data on compliance rates.
The sensitivity analyses evaluate the impact of replacing these assumptions with
the more pessimistic base case assumptions from Harvard’s October, 2003 report.
In particular, we increase the mislabeling rates to 5% for both MBM and feed
production.  We increase contamination rates increased to 14% (MBM
production) and 16% (feed production).
•
Sensitivity 2 – Misfeeding – Misfeeding rate increased to 15%.  This worst case
value is the same as the worst case value used in Harvard’s October, 2003 report.
•
Sensitivity 6 – Incubation period – we expand the incubation period distribution
(detailed in Section <IP_ADDRESS> in Cohen et al. (2003a)) by doubling the value of each
th
percentile.  For example, the 5 percentile is doubled from a base case value of
2.5 years to 5 years, the median is increased from a value of approximately 4
th
years to 8 years, and the 95 percentile is increased from a value of 7 years to
approximately 14 years.
FSIS has also included the following sensitivity analyses:
•
Sensitivity 5 – Antemortem inspection – We make the antemortem inspector less
effective at identifying cattle with clinical BSE signs.  The antemortem inspector
detects none of animals, regardless of ambulatory status.
-
6

3
•
Sensitivity 9 – Poultry Litter Recycling – We assume that 5% of poultry litter is
used as cattle feed, rather than 1%, as in the base case.
Results
Results appear in Appendix 2 and 3 to this report.  In order to facilitate reference to the
contents of the October 2005 Harvard BSE Update report, these appendices retain the numbering
scheme from that report to the extent possible.  Table 4 summarizes the correspondence between
this numbering scheme and the scenarios run.
Table 4

Numbering of Scenarios in Appendices to this Report

Section
Scenario
Number
1
Base Case
2.1.1
USDA A: Ban on Non-Ambulatory Animals to Human Food
2.1.2a
USDA B: 12 Month Comprehensive SRM (Food Only) – 100% Compliance
2.1.2b
USDA B: 24 Month Comprehensive SRM (Food Only) – 100% Compliance
2.1.2c
USDA B: 30 Month Comprehensive SRM (Food Only) – 100% Compliance
2.1.2d
USDA B: 30 Month Comprehensive SRM (Food Only) – 90% Compliance
2.1.2e
USDA B: 30 Month Comprehensive SRM (Food Only) – 95% Compliance
2.1.2f
USDA B: 30 Month Comprehensive SRM (Food Only) – 99% Compliance
2.1.4
Combined USDA Scenarios:
A: Ban on Non-Ambulatory Animals to Human Food
B: 30 Month Comprehensive SRM (Food Only) – 100% Compliance
3.1
Sensitivity 1: Pessimistic - Mislabeling and Contamination
3.2
Sensitivity 2: Pessimistic – Misfeeding
3.5
Sensitivity 5: Less Effective AM Inspection
3.6
Sensitivity 6: Longer Incubation Period
3.9
Sensitivity 9: High Poultry Recycling Rate (5%)
-
7


approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This document is available from ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken,
PA 19428-2959, and is also available for inspection as part of Docket
A-91-06, located at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 3334, EPA West
Building, Washington, DC 20004,<PHONE_NUMBER> or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on January 13, 1992. These materials are incorporated as they
exist on the date of the approval and a notice of any change in these
materials will be published in the Federal Register.
* * * * *
    (j) Effective in the 2012 and later model years, NCPs will be
available for the following emission standard:
    (1) Diesel heavy-duty engine oxides of nitrogen standard of 0.20
grams per brake horsepower-hour in Sec.  86.007-11(a)(1)(i).
    (i) [Reserved].
    (ii) For heavy heavy-duty diesel engines:
    (A) The following values shall be used to calculate an NCP in
accordance with Sec.  86.1113-87(a):
    (1) COC50: $3,219.
    (2) COC90: $3,775.
    (3) MC50: $10,729 per gram per brake horsepower-hour
NOX.
    (4) F: 1.173.
    (5) UL: 0.50 grams per brake horsepower-hour NOX.
    (B) The following factor shall be used to calculate the engineering
and development component of the NCP for the standard set forth in
Sec.  86.007-11(a)(1)(i) in accordance with Sec.  86.1113-87(h): 0.005.
    (2) Manufacturers may not generate emission credits for any
pollutant from engines for which the manufacturer pays an NCP for the
NOX standard identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this section.
    (3) The penalty shall be adjusted annually as specified in Sec.
86.1113-87 with 2012 as the first year. Note that this means
AAF2012 is equal to 1.

0
5. Section 86.1113-87 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(1) to read
as follows:

Sec.  86.1113-87  Calculation and payment of penalty.

* * * * *
    (g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, the
nonconformance penalty or penalties assessed under this subpart must be
paid as follows:
    (i) By the quarterly due dates, i.e., within 30 days of the end of
each calendar quarter (March 31, June 30, September 30 and December
31), or according to such other payment schedule as the Administrator
may approve pursuant to a manufacturer's request, for all nonconforming
engines or vehicles produced by a manufacturer in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section and distributed into commerce for that
quarter.
    (ii) The penalty shall be payable to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, NCP Fund, Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program, P.O. Box
979032St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Note on the check and supporting
information that this is an NCP payment.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-21967 Filed 9-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P