[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38623-38625]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0422]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: Underwater Vessel Testing, San Francisco Bay, San
Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters of San Francisco Bay in San Francisco, CA near Hunters
Point, in support of the Underwater Vessel Testing. This safety zone is
established to ensure the safety of the testing participants and
mariners transiting the area. Unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the
safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from July 7, 2015
until October 31, 2015. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will
be used from July 1, 2015 until July 7, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2015-0422. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to 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 rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant Marcia Medina, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' The Coast Guard received the information about the event on
May 11, 2015, and the event would occur before the rulemaking process
would be completed. Due to the short timeframe for issuing this safety
zone, we find that it is impracticable to solicit comments for this
temporary final rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register for similar reasons listed above.
Due to the time constraints noted, it is impracticable to give 30 days
notice before the effective date of this rule.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C.
191, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast
Guard to establish safety zones.
    The Office of the Secretary of Defense will host Underwater Vessel
Testing periodically between July 1 through October 31, 2015 in the
navigable waters of San Francisco Bay in San Francisco, CA near
Hunter's Point. The safety zone is needed to establish a temporary
restricted area on the waters surrounding the testing. A restricted
area is necessary to ensure the safety of mariners transiting the area.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters
around the testing. The Underwater Vessel Testing Safety Zone
establishes a temporary restricted area on the water within an area
connecting the following points: 37[deg]43'30'' N., 122[deg]21'6'' W.;
37[deg]43'53'' N., 122[deg]19'17'' W.; 37[deg]41'34'' N.,
122[deg]20'30'' W.; 37[deg]41'56'' N., 122[deg]18'42'' W.; thence back
to the point of origin (NAD 83). Periods of enforcement will be
requested by the Office of the Secretary of Defense with one week
notice and approved by the COTP. This safety zone will be enforced for
a duration of 6 to up to 72 hours as announced via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners periodically between July 1 through October 31, 2015. At the
conclusion of the testing evolution the safety zone shall terminate for
each evolution.
    The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of the testing. Except for persons or
vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or
vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations
are needed to keep vessels away from the vicinity of the testing to
ensure the safety of mariners transiting the area.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses

based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the
level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is
limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic
area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters
encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be
significant because the local waterway users will be notified via
public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will
result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are
waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged
in recreational activities.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
    This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and
thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety
zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety
zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety
zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. 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 rule. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). 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.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone of limited size and duration. This

rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-681 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-681  Safety zone; Underwater Vessel Testing, San
Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Location. This temporary safety zone will encompass the
navigable waters of the South San Francisco Bay within an area
connecting the following points: 37[deg]43'30'' N., 122[deg]21'6'' W.;
37[deg]43'53'' N., 122[deg]19'17'' W.; 37[deg]41'34'' N.,
122[deg]20'30'' W.; 37[deg]41'56'' N., 122[deg]18'42'' W. (NAD 83);
thence back to the point of origin (NAD 83), as depicted in National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18651.
    (b) Enforcement period. The zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section will be enforced for a duration of 6 to up to 72 hours, as
announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners, periodically between on
July 1 through October 31, 2015. The Captain of the Port San Francisco
(COTP) will notify the maritime community of periods during which this
zone will be enforced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance
with Sec.  165.7.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard
vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting
the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in subpart C of
this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels
may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through
the 24-hour Command Center at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 18, 2015.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2015-16621 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53155-53159]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1222; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-268-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -
900, and -900ER series airplanes. That NPRM proposed to require
checking the escape slide girt for serviceability, and

replacement if necessary; modifying the cable routing provision;
replacing the regulator padding; modifying the aspirator orientation;
and modifying the valise. That NPRM also proposed to require, for
certain airplanes, modifying or replacing the Vespel piston, modifying
the pilot valve regulator, installing a new firing cable and safety
pin, and modifying the slide valise. That NPRM was prompted by reports
of escape slides failing to deploy from the forward and aft right-hand
doors during scheduled maintenance slide deployments. This action
revises that NPRM by adding airplanes to the applicability of that NPRM
and specifying revised service information. We are proposing this
supplemental NPRM to prevent failure of an escape slide to deploy,
which could result in the slide being unusable during an emergency
evacuation and increased likelihood of injury to passengers or
crewmembers due to the difficulty in evacuating the airplane. Since
these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the
NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the
chance to comment on these proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by October
15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Goodrich Corporation, Aircraft Interior Products, Attn: Technical
Publications, 3414 South Fifth Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85040; phone:
602-243-2270; Internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Piccola, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety & Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-1222;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-268-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that
would apply to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -
900, and -900ER series airplanes. That NPRM published in the Federal
Register on November 8, 2011 (76 FR 69159). That NPRM proposed to
require checking the escape slide girt for serviceability and
replacement if necessary, modifying the cable routing provision, the
aspirator orientation, the valise, and replacing the regulator padding.
That NPRM also proposed to require, for certain airplanes, modifying or
replacing the Vespel piston, modifying the pilot valve regulator,
modifying the slide valise, and installing a new firing cable and
safety pin.

Actions Since Previous NPRM (76 FR 69159, November 8, 2011) Was Issued

    Since we issued the previous NPRM (76 FR 69159, November 8, 2011),
new service information has been issued that provides clarifications
and minor corrections, and adds data. Additionally, an error was
discovered in the part numbers (P/Ns) specified in paragraph (c),
``Applicability,'' of that NPRM. The specification of ``P/N 5A3307-1, -
3, -5, or -301, S/N BNG0001 through BNG5707 inclusive,'' is incorrect.
The part number should have read ``P/N 5A3307-1, -3, -5, or -301, S/N
BNG0001 through BNG14499 inclusive.'' We have changed the supplemental
NPRM in this regard.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM
(76 FR 69159, November 8, 2011). The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Use Revised Service Information

    Boeing, United Airlines (United), and Goodrich Corporation
(Goodrich) requested that the previous NPRM (76 FR 69159, November 8,
2011) be changed to incorporate revised service information to ensure
that operators are incorporating the most current revision of the
service information.
    We agree that current service information should be incorporated
into this supplemental NPRM. Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-389,
Revision 2, dated May 4, 2012; and Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-
339, Revision 5, dated May 4, 2012; provide minor corrections, updated
pricing, and additional data. The technical content of these documents
has not been changed. We have changed paragraphs (g) and (h)(1) of the
supplemental NPRM to refer to Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-389,
Revision 2, dated May 4, 2012; and Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-
339, Revision 5, dated May 4, 2012; as applicable. We have changed
paragraph (i) of the supplemental NPRM to include credit for
modifications of the escape slide done before the effective date of the
AD using Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-339, Revision 3, dated May
8, 2009; or Revision 4, dated October 1, 2011. Modification of the
escape slide specified in Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-389,
Revision 2, dated May 4, 2012, consists of modifying the cable routing
provision, replacing the

regulator padding, modifying the aspirator orientation, and modifying
the valise. Modification of the escape slide specified in Goodrich
Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-339, Revision 5, dated May 4, 2012, consists
of modifying the pilot valve regulator P/N 4A3865-2, -3, or -4, as
applicable; installing a new firing cable and safety pin; and modifying
the slide valise.

Requests To Change Applicability

    Goodrich, Boeing, United, AirTran Airways (AirTran), and Southwest
Airlines (Southwest) requested that we change or clarify the
applicability of the pervious NPRM (76 FR 69159, November 8, 2011) to
include slide P/N 5A3307-1, -3, -5, or -301, S/Ns BNG0001 through
BNG14499 inclusive. Boeing stated that this change ``will ensure that
all applicable 5A3307 series evacuation slides have been identified for
incorporation of the Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-389
modifications.''
    We agree that S/Ns BNG0001 through BNG14499 inclusive should be
included in the applicability of this supplemental NPRM as explained
previously. We have changed paragraph (c) of the supplemental NPRM to
include P/N 5A3307-1, -3, -5, or -301, S/N BNG0001 through BNG14499
inclusive.

Requests To Remove Slide Part Numbers From the NPRM (76 FR 69159,
November 8, 2011)

    Goodrich, United, and Boeing requested that we remove slide P/N
5A3086-1, -3, or -301, S/Ns B3F001 through B3F611 inclusive; P/N
5A3088-1, -3, or -301, S/Ns B3A001 through B3A685 inclusive; from the
NPRM (76 FR 69159, November 8, 2011). Goodrich stated that
specification of slide P/N 5A3086-1, -3, or -301, S/Ns B3F001 through
B3F611 inclusive; and P/N 5A3088-1, -3, or -301, S/Ns B3A001 through
B3A685 inclusive; is inappropriate for the proposed AD, because the
unsafe condition that the proposed AD addresses is not an issue for the
P/Ns 5A3086 and 5A3088 series slides. Goodrich also stated that the
design of the P/Ns 5A3086 and 5A3088 series slides precludes the type
of event that has been experienced with the P/N 5A3307 series slides.
Goodrich provided detailed information to support its request.
    We agree. Including these additional parts is confusing and is not
directly related to the unsafe condition addressed by this supplemental
NPRM. We have changed paragraph (c) of the supplemental NPRM to remove
slide P/N 5A3086-1, -3, or -301, S/Ns B3F001 through B3F611 inclusive;
and P/N 5A3088-1, -3, or -301, S/Ns B3A001 through B3A685 inclusive;
from the supplemental NPRM.

Request To Remove Girt Check

    Goodrich requested that the girt check be removed from the previous
NPRM (76 FR 69159, November 8, 2011). Goodrich stated that the girt
condition was not a causative factor in the unsafe condition described
in the previous NPRM. The girt condition check is not a configuration
requirement of the slide modification, which addresses the slide
nondeployment issue. Rather, the girt condition check is included in
the Goodrich service information because it falls under the heading of
good general maintenance practice. Goodrich stated that the girt check
specified in the Goodrich service information was not a causative
factor in the unsafe condition described by the previous NPRM and
questions the need for it to be called out in the AD.
    We agree. The girt condition check is not a configuration
requirement of the slide modification, which addresses the slide non-
deployment issue. We have removed the girt condition check from
paragraph (g) of the supplemental NPRM.

Requests To Remove Parts Installation Restriction

    United, American, WestJet, Southwest, Goodrich, and AirTran
requested that we remove paragraph (j) of the NPRM (76 FR 69159,
November 8, 2011), which prohibits installing certain parts on any
airplane after the effective date of the AD. The commenters stated that
this prohibition would prevent the use of affected spare slide
assemblies (un-modified) during modification of the slide units of the
previous NPRM, as well as the removal and reinstallation of the same
affected unit on an airplane. The commenters asserted that this
requirement could restrict an airline's ability to return an airplane
to service due to a shortage of parts.
    Boeing requested that we remove paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(3) from
the previous NPRM (76 FR 69159, November 8, 2011). The P/N 5A3086-1, -
3, and -301 evacuation slides; and P/N 5A3088-1, -3, and -301
evacuation slides are not affected by Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-
25-389, Revision 1, dated October 1, 2011, which is the subject of the
previous NPRM. Boeing stated that, once the evacuation slide has been
modified as specified in Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-389,
Revision 1, dated October 1, 2011, into the new P/N 5A3307-7
configuration, the old regulator and regulator valve padding parts will
have been replaced with new parts; therefore, just listing P/N 5A3307-
1, -3, -5, and -301 evacuation slides would cover the old regulator and
regulator valve padding parts.
    We agree with removing the parts installation restriction, since
this prohibition could make it difficult for operators to maintain
their airplanes. After the effective date of the AD, if the slides are
removed for any reason, this prohibition could lead to an airplane with
slides having mixed part numbers. We have removed paragraph (j) from
the supplemental NPRM, and redesiginated subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.

Request To Remove Repeated Wording

    United requested that we address the need for repeating
accomplishment instructions within paragraphs (g) and (h) of the
previous NPRM (76 FR 69159, November 8, 2011). United stated that this
information is already contained within Goodrich Service Bulletins
5A3307-25-389, Revision 1, dated October 1, 2011; and 5A3307-25-339,
Revision 4, dated October 1, 2011; respectively, and by repeating this
information, the AD could contain dated information.
    We agree that repeating the specifics of the accomplishment
instructions in paragraphs (g) and (h) of the supplemental NPRM is
unnecessary in this case. We have changed paragraphs (g) and (h) of the
supplemental NPRM to require modifying the escape slide in accordance
with the applicable service information. We have described the
specifics of modifying the escape slide in paragraphs (g) and (h) of
the supplemental NPRM in the previous response under comment ``Request
to Use Revised Service Information.'' No further change is necessary in
this regard.

Request To Remove Certain Part Numbers

    United requested that we address repetitive slide part numbers in
the previous NPRM (76 FR 69159, November 8, 2011), which have already
been subjected to previous AD rulemaking. United stated that including
slide part numbers that were subjected to previously issued rulemaking,
such as AD 2008-24-08, Amendment 39-15748 (73 FR 72320, November 28,
2008), undermines the rulemaking process and forces operators to
demonstrate compliance against certain part numbers for a second time.
    We agree and have removed P/Ns 5A3307-1 and 5A3307-3, which were
the subject of previous rulemaking (AD 2008-24-08, Amendment 39-15748
(73

FR 72320, November 28, 2008)), from this supplemental NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the
original NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to
reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the
public to comment on this supplemental NPRM.

Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    This supplemental NPRM would require accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 557 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modify girt and valise, and      2 work-hours x $85 per  $223.............  $393.............  $218,901.
 replace padding.                 hour = $170.
Modify regulator valve, install  1 work-hour x $85 per   Between $1,749     Between $1,834     Between
 cable and pin, and modify        hour = $85.             and $1,836.        and $1,921.        $1,021,538 and
 slide valise.                                                                                $1,069,997.
Modify Vespel piston...........  1 work-hour x $85 per   $0...............  $85..............  $47,345.
                                  hour = $85.
Optional Vespel piston           Up to 1 work-hour x     Up to $612.......  Up to $697.......  Up to $388,229.
 replacement.                     $85 per hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the check of the girt.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                  Action                                Labor cost                 Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Girt replacement (Goodrich Service          1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85..            $942           $1,027
 Bulletin 5A3307-25-389, Revision 2, dated
 May 4, 2012).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the parts supplier, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-1222; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-268-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 15, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2008-24-08, Amendment 39-15748 (73 FR 72320,
November 28, 2008).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes; certificated in any
category; with Goodrich Corporation door escape slide part number
(P/N) 5A3307-1, -3, -5, or -301, serial number (S/N) BNG0001 through
BNG14499 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of escape slides failing to
deploy from the forward and aft right-hand doors during scheduled
maintenance slide deployments. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of an escape slide to deploy, which could result in the
slide being unusable during an emergency evacuation and increased
likelihood of injury to passengers or crewmembers due to the
difficulty in evacuating the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Slide Modification

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the
escape slide in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-389, Revision 2, dated May 4,
2012.

(h) Concurrent Requirements

    (1) For slide P/N 5A3307-301: Prior to or concurrently with
accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
modify the escape slide in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-339, Revision 5,
dated May 4, 2012.
    (2) For slide P/N 5A3307-301 or 5A3307-5: Prior to or
concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, modify the Vespel piston in the regulator valves, or
replace the Vespel piston with a new or serviceable Vespel piston P/
N 3A3566-2 or 3A3832-2, as applicable, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-349,
Revision 1, dated January 11, 2010.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Goodrich Service Bulletin
5A3307-25-339, Revision 1, dated September 26, 2003; Revision 2,
dated March 31, 2004; Revision 3, dated May 8, 2009; or Revision 4,
dated October 1, 2011; which are not incorporated by reference in
this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the modification or
replacement of the Vespel piston in the regulator valves required by
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-
349, dated September 15, 2004, which is not incorporated by
reference in this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sarah Piccola,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety & Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Goodrich Corporation, Aircraft Interior Products, ATTN: Technical
Publications, 3414 South Fifth Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85040;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, the FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 24, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-21556 Filed 8-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78973-78974]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30998]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1147]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Preparing a Claim of
Categorical Exclusion or an Environmental Assessment for Submission to
the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January
27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0541.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Preparing a Claim of Categorical Exclusion or an Environmental
Assessment for Submission to the Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition (OMB Control Number 0910-0541)--Extension

    As an integral part of its decisionmaking process, we are obligated
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to consider
the environmental impact of our actions, including allowing
notifications for food contact substances to become effective and
approving food additive petitions, color additive petitions, GRAS
affirmation petitions, requests for exemption from regulation as a food
additive, and actions on certain food labeling citizen petitions,
nutrient content claims petitions, and health claims petitions. In
1997, we amended our regulations in part 25 (21 CFR part 25) to provide
for categorical exclusions for additional classes of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment (62 FR 40570, July 29, 1997). As a result of that
rulemaking, we no longer routinely require submission of information
about the manufacturing and production of our regulated articles. We
also have eliminated the previously required Environmental Assessment
(EA) and abbreviated EA formats from the amended regulations. Instead,
we have provided guidance that contains sample formats to help the
industry submit a claim of categorical exclusion or an EA to the Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). The guidance document
entitled ``Preparing a Claim of Categorical Exclusion or an
Environmental Assessment for Submission to the Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition'' identifies, interprets, and clarifies existing
requirements imposed by statute and regulation, consistent with the
Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1507.3). It
consists of recommendations that do not themselves create requirements;
rather, they are explanatory guidance for our own procedures in order
to ensure full compliance with the purposes and provisions of NEPA.
    The guidance provides information to assist in the preparation of
claims of categorical exclusion and EAs for submission to CFSAN. The
following questions are covered in this guidance: (1) What types of
industry-initiated actions are subject to a claim of categorical
exclusion, (2) what must a claim of categorical exclusion include by
regulation, (3) what is an EA, (4) when is an EA required by regulation
and what format should be used, (5) what are extraordinary
circumstances, and (6) what suggestions does CFSAN have for preparing
an EA? CFSAN encourages the industry to use the EA formats described in
the guidance because standardized documentation submitted by industry
increases the

efficiency of the review process. Although alternative approaches may
be used, if these approaches satisfy the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations. We are requesting the extension of OMB
approval for the information collection provisions in the guidance.
    Description of Respondents: The likely respondents include
businesses engaged in the manufacture or sale of food, food
ingredients, and substances used in materials that come into contact
with food.
    In the Federal Register of October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64218), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. One comment was received. However, the
comment was beyond the scope of the collection of information's four
topics that are being solicited. Therefore, it will not be discussed in
this document.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
  21 CFR Part 25; Environmental      Number of     responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
      impact considerations         respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   25.32(i).................              42               1              42               1              42
Sec.   25.32(o).................               1               1               1               1               1
Sec.   25.32(q).................               2               1               2               1               2
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The above estimates for respondents and numbers of responses are
based on the annualized numbers of petitions and notifications
qualifying for Sec.  25.32(i) and (q) that the Agency has received in
the past 3 years. Please note that in the past 3 years, there have been
no submissions that requested an action that would have been subject to
the categorical exclusion in Sec.  25.32(o). To avoid counting this
burden as zero, we have estimated the burden for this categorical
exclusion at one respondent making one submission a year for a total of
one annual submission.
    To calculate the estimate for the hours per response values, we
assumed that the information requested for each of these three
categorical exclusions in this guidance is readily available to the
submitter. For the information requested for the exclusion in Sec.
25.32(i), we expect that submitter will need to gather information from
appropriate persons in the submitter's company and prepare this
information for attachment to the claim for categorical exclusion. We
believe that this effort should take no longer than 1 hour per
submission. For the information requested for the exclusions in Sec.
25.32(o) and (q), the submitters will almost always merely need to copy
existing documentation and attach it to the claim for categorical
exclusion. We believe that collecting this information should also take
no longer than 1 hour per submission.

    Dated: December 20, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-30998 Filed 12-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62392-62394]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26143]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84660; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-094]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Relocate the Exchange's Options Exercise and Delivery Rules

November 27, 2018.
    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 November 14, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``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 proposes to a proposal to relocate the Exchange's
options exercise and delivery rules, currently in Chapter VIII of the
Exchange's rulebook (``Rulebook''), to Options 5, Section 100 in the
Rulebook's shell structure.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 2017 the Exchange added a shell structure to its Rulebook
with the purpose of improving efficiency and readability and to
align its rules closer to those of its five sister exchanges, Nasdaq
BX, Inc.; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; and
Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``Affiliated Exchanges''). See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 82175 (November 29, 2017), 82 FR 57494 (December 5,
2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-125).

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

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to relocate the Exchange's options exercise
and delivery rules, currently in Chapter VIII of the Rulebook, to
Options 5, Section 100 in the Exchange's rulebook's (``Rulebook'')
shell structure. The relocation of the options exercise and delivery
rules is part of the Exchange's continued effort to promote efficiency
and the structural conformity of its processes with those of its
Affiliated Exchanges.\4\ The Exchange believes that the migration of
the options exercise and delivery rules to their new location will
facilitate the use of the Rulebook by members of the Exchange who are
members of other Affiliated Exchanges. Moreover, the proposed changes
are of a non-substantive nature and will not amend the relocated rules
other than to update their numbers, redesignate the current
``Supplementary Material'' as ``Commentary'', and make conforming
cross-reference changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ 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 promoting efficiency and the structural conformity of the Exchange's
processes with those of the Affiliated Exchanges and by making the
Exchange's Rulebook easier to read and more accessible to its members.
The Exchange believes that the relocation of the options exercise and
delivery rules and the cross-reference updates are of a non-substantive
nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 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. The proposed changes do not
impose a burden on competition because, as previously stated, they (i)
are of a non-substantive nature, (ii) are intended to harmonize the
numbering of the Exchange's rules with those of its Affiliated
Exchanges, and (iii) are intended to organize the Rulebook in a way
that it will ease the members' navigation and reading of the rules
across the Affiliated Exchanges.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \9\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. Waiver
of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to promptly relocate
the Exchange's options exercise and delivery rules, which the Exchange
believes will improve the organization and readability of the
Exchange's Rulebook. Therefore, the Commission believes that waiver of
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-094 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-094. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-094 and
should be submitted on or before December 24, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26143 Filed 11-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 58119]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23024]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2355-018]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered
for Filing With the Commission and Deadline for Submission of Final
Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License
    b. Project No.: 2355-018
    c. Date Filed: August 29, 2012
    d. Applicant: Exelon Generation Company, LLC
    e. Name of Project: Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project
    f. Location: On Muddy Run, a tributary to the Susquehanna River, in
Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania. The project does not occupy
any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC 791 (a)-825(r)
    h. Applicant Contact: Colleen Hicks, Manager, Regulatory and
Licensing, Hydro, Exelon Power, 300 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA
19348, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
Kathleen Barr[ograve]n, Vice President, Federal Regulatory Affairs and
Wholesale Market Policy, Exelon Corporation, 101 Constitution Avenue,
Washington, DC 20001, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Emily Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Project Description: The Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project
consists of four dams. The main dam is a rock-filled structure across
the Muddy Run ravine with a central impervious core, a maximum height
of approximately 260 feet and a total length of 4,800 feet. The east
dike is a zoned-earth and rock-filled embankment with a maximum height
of approximately 12 feet and a total length of 800 feet. The recreation
pond dike is a zoned-earth and rock-filled embankment with a maximum
height of approximately 90 feet and a total length of 750 feet. The
canal embankment has a maximum height of approximately 35 feet. Total
storage in the 900-acre Muddy Run reservoir (upper reservoir) is
approximately 60,000 acre-feet and the total useable storage is
approximately 35,500 acre-feet at the maximum pool elevation of 520
feet. The maximum pool elevation is approximately 411 feet above the
normal elevation of Conowingo pond. Conowingo pond (lower reservoir)
has a surface area of 9,000 acres and design storage of approximately
310,000 acre-feet at the normal full pool elevation of 109.2 feet.
    The main spillway is a non-gated concrete ogee-type structure that
is 200 feet long, 20 feet high and with crest elevation of 521 feet,
which is directed to a vegetated natural ravine. The recreation pond
spillway is a rock-cut channel approximately 140 feet wide and with a
crest elevation of 520 feet.
    The power intake facilities consist of four cylinder gates with
trash racks in a cylindrical tower. Each intake supplies two units.
Each intake leads to a 430-foot-deep vertical shaft then to a
horizontal power tunnel, which divides into two sections. The power
tunnel sections transition to a penstock that leads to one of the eight
reversible pump-turbine units in the powerhouse. The power plant is
constructed of concrete and is 133 feet wide and 600 feet long. It
houses eight Francis turbines each equipped with a 100-MW generator.
The powerhouse turbines each have a hydraulic capacity of 4,000 cfs,
for a total discharge capacity from the powerhouse of 32,000 cfs. The
pumping capacity of the pump turbines is 3,500 cfs each for a total
powerhouse pumping capability of 28,000 cfs. Water flowing through the
turbines is discharged via the draft tubes into the Susquehanna River
adjacent to the powerhouse. The units are equipped with trash racks
between the draft tube outlet and the river.
    Electricity generated at the project is transmitted by two
individual 220-kV transmission lines extending from the project
switching station approximately 4.25 miles to the Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station (PBAPS) North Substation located in York County.
    The Muddy Run Project has an authorized nameplate generating
capacity of 800 MW and generates an average of 1,610,611 MWh annually.
Exelon is not proposing any new or upgraded facilities or structural
changes to the project at this time. Also, Exelon has engaged
interested stakeholders to participate in the development of a
comprehensive settlement agreement based on collaborative negotiation
of specific terms and conditions for the new Muddy Run license.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule: A preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule will
be provided in a subsequent notice.
    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: September 12, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23024 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26107-26109]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10526]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0014]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 19 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective May 3, 2013. The exemptions expire
on May 3, 2015.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On March 13, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 19 individuals and requested
comments from the public (78 FR 16032). The public comment period
closed on April 12, 2013 and one comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 19 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 19 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 42 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the March 13, 2013, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment is
considered and discussed below.
    The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation commented in favor of
granting an exemption to Larry L. Eberly after reviewing his driving
history.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) 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 (4) 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 also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 19 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Christopher W. Bailey (OH), Kent S. Bills (IN), Bobby B. Brown
(VA), Maryland A. Chandler (KY), Ronald D. Clark (AR), Larry L. Eberly
(PA), Steven J. Fessler (IL), Michael R. Fisher (IA), Mark A. Krause
(PA), Jeffrey G. Morford (WA), Patrick L. Morningstar (MD), Charles R.
Plummer (OH), Grady W. Reed (DC), Russell L. Stiley (CO), Gary A.
Stoutamyer (VA), Thomas M. Van Camp (IA), Jack K. Webster (KY), Harry
V. Wilhite, Jr. (AL), and Robert G. Young (OK) from the ITDM
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed
under ``Conditions and Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the 1/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(e) 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: April 24, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-10526 Filed 5-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P