[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64841-64843]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26053]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0215]

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 19 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective October 23, 2012. The exemptions
expire on October 23, 2014.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On August 29, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (77 FR 52381). That notice listed 19 applicants' case
histories. The 19 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 19 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 19
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 retinal detachment, astigmatism, scleral buckle,
amblyopia, macular ischemia, strabismus, loss of vision, and
prosthesis. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. Eleven of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The eight individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a period of 5 to 42 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 19 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 38
years. In the past 3 years, two of the drivers were involved in
crashes, and three of the drivers were convicted of moving violations
in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the August 29, 2012
notice (77 FR 52381).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 19 applicants, two of the drivers were involved in crashes, and
three were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 19 applicants listed in the notice of August
29, 2012 (77 FR 52381).
    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 19 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy

of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment is
considered and discussed below.
    Brian Dardar commented in favor of granting the Federal vision
exemption to all of the drivers listed in this notice because they have
already demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV safely on state
highways and a doctor's opinion has supported the applicants.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 19 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts James W. Bittle (OK), Kenneth C. Caldwell (NY), Paul Claas
(WI), Roger A. Duester (TX), Edward A. Egy (OH), Jonathan D. Evans
(KY), Kelvin Frandin (KY), Charlene E. Geary (SD), Robert S. Gibson,
Jr. (PA), Andrew F. Hill (TX), David N. Hinchcliffe (TX), Michael C.
Hoff (WA), Joel M. Hunter (OH), Morris W. Lammert, Jr., (WI) Ray E.
Meyers II, (MD), William J. Powell, Jr. (NC), Benny L. Sanchez (CA),
Sandeep Singh (CA) and James T. Stalker (OH) from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: October 16, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-26053 Filed 10-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78902-78904]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6985; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-16]

Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Illinois Towns;
Carmi, IL; De Kalb, IL; Harrisburg, IL; Kewanee, IL; Litchfield, IL;
Paris, IL; and Taylorville, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Carmi Municipal Airport, Carmi, IL; De
Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport, De Kalb, IL; Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport,
Harrisburg, IL; Kewanne Municipal Airport, Kewanne, IL; Litchfield
Municipal Airport, Litchfield, IL; Edgar County Airport, Paris, IL; and
Taylorville Municipal Airport, Taylorville, IL. Decommissioning of non-
directional radio beacons (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, or
implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this
action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at the above airports. This action also updates
the geographic coordinates of Carmi Municipal Airport, De Kalb Taylor
Municipal Airport, Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport, Litchfield Municipal
Airport, Edgar County Airport, and Taylorville Municipal Airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 2, 2017. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace at Carmi Municipal Airport, Carmi, IL; De
Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport, De Kalb, IL; Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport,
Harrisburg, IL; Kewanne Municipal Airport, Kewanne, IL; Litchfield
Municipal Airport, Litchfield, IL; Edgar County Airport, Paris, IL; and
Taylorville Municipal Airport, Taylorville, IL.

History

    On July 1, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), (81 FR 43124) Docket No. FAA-2016-6985,
to modify Class E airspace at Carmi Municipal Airport, Carmi, IL; De
Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport, De Kalb, IL; Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport,
Harrisburg, IL; Kewanne Municipal Airport, Kewanne, IL; Litchfield
Municipal Airport, Litchfield, IL; Edgar County Airport, Paris, IL; and
Taylorville Municipal Airport, Taylorville, IL. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. The FAA
discovered a typographical error in the geographic coordinate of
Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport which has been corrected in this action.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at the following airports:

Within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of Carmi
Municipal Airport, Carmi, IL, and updating the geographic coordinates
of this airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Within a 6.8-mile radius (increased from the 6.6-mile radius) of De
Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport, De Kalb, IL, and updating the geographic
coordinates of this airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of
Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport, Harrisburg, IL, and updating the geographic
coordinates of this airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of Kewanee
Municipal Airport, Kewanee, IL;
Within a 6.7-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of Litchfield
Municipal Airport, Litchfield, IL, and updating the geographic
coordinates of this airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
Within a 6.4-mile radius (increased from the 6.3-mile radius) of Edgar
County Airport, Paris, IL, and updating the geographic coordinates of
this airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and
Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of
Taylorville Municipal Airport, Taylorville, IL, and updating the
geographic coordinates of this airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.

    These airspace reconfigurations are necessary due to the
decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, or
implementation of RNAV standard instrument procedures at these
airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and
management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR
operations at these airports.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL IL E5 Carmi, IL [Amended]

Carmi Municipal Airport, IL
    (Lat. 38[deg]05'22'' N., long. 88[deg]07'23'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Carmi Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

AGL IL E5 De Kalb, IL [Amended]

De Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport, IL
    (Lat. 41[deg]56'02'' N., long. 88[deg]42'20'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of the De Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport,
excluding that airspace which overlies the Chicago, IL, Class E
airspace area.
* * * * *

AGL IL E5 Harrisburg, IL [Amended]

Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport, IL
    (Lat. 37[deg]48'41'' N., long. 88[deg]33'01'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport.
* * * * *

AGL IL E5 Kewanee, IL [Amended]

Kewanee Municipal Airport, IL
    (Lat. 41[deg]12'19'' N., long. 89[deg]57'50'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Kewanee Airport.
* * * * *

AGL IL E5 Litchfield, IL [Amended]

Litchfield Municipal Airport, IL
    (Lat. 39[deg]09'45'' N., long. 89[deg]40'29'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of the Litchfield Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

AGL IL E5 Paris, IL [Amended]

Paris, Edgar County Airport, IL
    (Lat. 39[deg]41'59'' N., long. 87[deg]40'15'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Edgar County Airport.
* * * * *

AGL IL E5 Taylorville, IL [Amended]

Taylorville Municipal Airport, IL
    (Lat. 39[deg]31'57'' N., long. 89[deg]19'51'' W.)

That airspace extending from 700 feet above the surface within a
6.5-mile radius of the Taylorville Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 2, 2016.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-27101 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 207 (Friday, October 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60092-60093]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Docket Number FRA-2021-0099]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on October 13, 2021, the Lake
Superior Railroad Museum (LSRM)

petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR 223.11, Requirements for existing
locomotives. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2021-0099.
    Specifically, LSRM requests relief from glazing regulations for two
diesel locomotives, EMC 4211 and GN 192, with noncompliant glazing.\1\
The two locomotives are to be used in excursion service on the 26-mile
line of the North Shore Scenic Railroad (between Duluth and Two
Harbors, Minnesota) and on 1,500 feet of joint track with Canadian
National (at Two Harbors). LSRM states that it is a non-profit
corporation and replacing the glazing would cause a financial hardship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EMC 4211 was most recently granted relief by letter dated
January 8, 2015 (see Docket Number FRA-2002-23490). GN 192 was most
recently granted relief by letter dated October 8, 2014 (see Docket
Number FRA-1999-6072). The relief for both locomotives has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by December 13, 2021 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic
form of any written communications and comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to
better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-23518 Filed 10-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 30297]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11527]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

Enterprise Solar, LLC...................  EG16-42-000
Escalante Solar I, LLC..................  EG16-43-000
Escalante Solar II, LLC.................  EG16-44-000
Escalante Solar III, LLC................  EG16-45-000
Granite Mountain Solar East, LLC........  EG16-46-000
Granite Mountain Solar West, LLC........  EG16-47-000
Iron Springs Solar, LLC.................  EG16-48-000
Seward Generation, LLC..................  EG16-49-000
Summer Solar LLC........................  EG16-50-000
Ringer Hill Wind, LLC...................  EG16-51-000
South Plains Wind Energy II, LLC........  EG16-52-000
Comanche Solar PV, LLC..................  EG16-53-000
Solar Star California XLI, LLC..........  EG16-54-000
Grant County Interconnect, LLC..........  EG16-55-000
Red Horse III, LLC......................  EG16-56-000
62SK 8ME LLC............................  EG16-57-000
Middlesex Energy Center, LLC............  EG16-58-000
San Roman Wind I, LLC...................  EG16-59-000
East Ridge Transmission, LLC............  EG16-60-000
Black Hills Colorado IPP, LLC...........  EG16-61-000

    Take notice that during the month of April 2016, the status of the
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR
366.7(a).

    Dated: May 9, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11527 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45188-45190]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16378]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78234; File No. SR-BX-2016-033]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4120

July 6, 2016.
    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 June 22, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 4120 and the BX process for
commencing trading of a security that is the subject of a trading halt.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the Exchange's principal office, 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
    BX is proposing to make a minor modification to the BX process for
commencing trading of a security that is the subject of a trading halt.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to modify the way in which
orders are accepted prior to the commencement of trading for securities
subject to a trading halt. This change will simplify the order
submission operations for market participants during trading halts.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The proposed rule change is consistent with the recently
approved filing of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') as to
the process for commencing trading of a security that is the subject
of a trading halt. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77445
(March 25, 2016), 81 FR 18658 (March 31, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, BX Rule 4120(c)(4)(B) provides that during any trading
halt or pause, market participants may enter orders during the trading
halt or pause and designate such orders to be held until the
termination of the trading halt or pause. Under this rule, such orders
will be held in a suspended state until the termination of the halt or
pause, at which time they will be entered into the system. The Exchange
proposes that Rule 4120(c)(4)(B) be revised to simply state that orders
entered during any trading halt or pause will not be accepted.
    The implementation of the existing functionality for accepting
orders prior to the Exchange releasing the security for trading has not
been widely used and the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
will both improve and simplify the Exchange process for market
participants. The Exchange will issue an Equity Trader Alert notifying
Exchange member firms of the change prior to implementation on July 11,
2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system through an improved and simplified Exchange
process for commencing trading of a security that is the subject of a
trading halt. Specifically, this will be accomplished by revising
Exchange Rule 4120(c)(4)(B) to simply state that orders entered during
any trading halt or pause will not be accepted.
    The current functionality for accepting orders prior to the
Exchange releasing the security for trading is used infrequently and
consequently the proposed rule change will have little impact on
customers. To the extent that there is any impact, it will be that
rejecting orders rather than holding them in a suspended state will
clarify the state of participant orders, thereby reducing potential
confusion. The implementation of the existing functionality for
accepting orders prior to the Exchange releasing the security for
trading has not been widely used and the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change will both improve and simplify the Exchange process for
market participants.
    The proposed rule change also will remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market through competition.
Specifically, the proposed rule change will enhance competition by
increasing the Exchange's attractiveness as a venue for trading
securities because, as stated above, it will both improve and simplify
the Exchange process for market participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in an
improved and simplified process for market participants, which in turn
will reduce potential confusion during important market events. The
Exchange believes that this change will enhance competition by
increasing its attractiveness as a venue for trading securities.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (i) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (iii) by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the
date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act and Rule 19b4(f)(6) thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Furthermore, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file a 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, or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has
provided such notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30-days from the date of filing. However, Rule
19b-

4(f)(6)(iii) \7\ 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 asked the Commission to waive the 30-
day operative delay so that it may implement the proposed rule change
on July 11, 2016, contemporaneously with a similar Nasdaq rule that was
previously approved by the Commission \8\ and a virtually identical
proposed rule change submitted by NASDAQ PHLX LLC.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \8\ See supra note 3.
    \9\ See SR-PHLX-2016-70 submitted on June 22, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange proposes to modify the way in which orders are accepted
prior to the commencement of trading for securities that are subject to
a trading halt. The Exchange notes that the current functionality for
accepting orders prior to the Exchange releasing the security for
trading is used infrequently and therefore the proposed rule change
will have little impact on its customers. Further, the Commission does
not believe that the proposed rule change raises any new or novel
issues. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2016-033 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-BX-2016-033. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-033, and should be
submitted on or before August 2, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16378 Filed 7-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8719-8722]
[DOCID:fr26fe09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0731; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-058-AD;
Amendment 39-15812; AD 2009-04-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-
100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to all Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That AD
currently requires repetitive detailed inspections of the aft pressure
bulkhead for indications of ``oil cans'' and previous oil can repairs,
and corrective actions if necessary. An oil can is an area on a
pressure dome web that moves when pushed from the forward side. This
new AD requires a reduced compliance time for the initial detailed
inspection and revises the applicability. This AD results from a report
that cracks in oil-canned areas were found during an inspection of the
aft pressure bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct the
propagation of fatigue cracks in the vicinity of oil cans on the web of
the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in rapid decompression of
the airplane and overpressurization of the tail section, and consequent
loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 2, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 2,
2009.
    On September 13, 2004 (69 FR 48133, August 9, 2004), the Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a
certain other publication.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2004-16-09, amendment
39-13765 (69 FR 48133, August 9, 2004). The existing AD applies to all
Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on July 2, 2008 (73 FR 37900). That NPRM proposed to
require a reduced initial threshold for repetitive detailed inspections
of the aft pressure bulkhead for indications of ``oil cans'' and
previous oil can repairs, and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
received on the NPRM. Two commenters, the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA), and Northwest Airlines, support the NPRM.

Request to Remove Certain Airplanes From Applicability Section

    Boeing requests that we remove Model 747-400 airplanes with the
following variable numbers from paragraph (c) of this proposed AD:
RT631, RT632, RT743, and RT876. Those airplanes have been or are being
converted to a 747-400 LCF (large cargo freighter) configuration. The
aft pressure bulkhead is removed from these airplanes; therefore, the
proposed AD would not apply to those airplanes.
    We agree that airplanes that have been converted to a Model 747-400
LCF configuration no longer have an aft pressure bulkhead to inspect.
We have revised the applicability section of this AD to exclude
airplanes that have been converted. We have not excluded specific
variable numbers as suggested by Boeing since more airplanes might be
converted to the Model 747-400 LCF configuration in the future.

Explanation of Change to Paragraph (f) of This AD

    We have removed the ``Service Bulletin Reference'' paragraph from
this AD. (That paragraph was identified as paragraph (f) in the NPRM.)
Instead, we have spelled out the service bulletin citations throughout
this AD. We also re-identified the subsequent paragraphs.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase
the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 917 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 165 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2004-16-09 and retained in this
AD take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of
$80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
currently required actions to the U.S. operators is $26,400, or $160
per airplane, per inspection cycle.

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 have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-13765 (69 FR 48133, August 9, 2004) and by adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2009-04-06 Boeing: Amendment 39-15812. Docket No. FAA-2008-0731;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-058-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective April 2, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2004-16-09.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B
SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any
category, except those that have been converted to a Model 747-400
LCF configuration.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report that cracks in oil-canned
areas were found during an inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct the propagation of
fatigue cracks in the vicinity of oil cans on the web of the aft
pressure bulkhead, which could result in rapid decompression of the
airplane and overpressurization of the tail section, and consequent
loss of control of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

    Note 1: This AD refers to certain portions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated October 3, 2002; and Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated February 21,
2008; for inspections and repair information. In addition, this AD
specifies requirements

beyond those included in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482,
dated October 3, 2002; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008. Where the AD and
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated October 3, 2002;
and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated
February 21, 2008; differ, the AD prevails.

Requirements of AD 2004-16-09, With Reduced Threshold

Initial and Repetitive Inspections

    (f) At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
and (f)(2) of this AD, perform a detailed inspection of the aft
pressure bulkhead for indications of oil cans and previous oil can
repairs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated October 3, 2002; or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated
February 21, 2008. After the effective date of this AD, Revision 1
must be used.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after September 13, 2004 (the effective
date of AD 2004-16-09), whichever is later.
    (2) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is
``an intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc. may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

    (g) If no indication of an oil can is found and no indication of
a previous oil can repair is found during the detailed inspection
required by paragraph (f) of this AD, repeat the detailed inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles.

Indication of Oil Can

    (h) If any indication of an oil can is found during the detailed
inspection required by paragraph (f) or (g) of this AD, before
further flight, perform an eddy current inspection of the web around
the periphery of the oil can indication for cracks, as shown in
Figure 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated October 3, 2002; or Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008. After the
effective date of this AD, Revision 1 must be used.
    (i) If no crack is found during the eddy current inspection
required by paragraph (i) of this AD, do the actions specified in
paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For the oil can that meets the allowable limits specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated October 3, 2002; or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated
February 21, 2008: Repeat the eddy current inspection specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000
flight cycles. As an option, repair the oil can in accordance with
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
    (2) For the oil can that does not meet the allowable limits
specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated
October 3, 2002; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482,
Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008: Before further flight, repair
the oil can in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated October 3, 2002; or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated
February 21, 2008. After the effective date of this AD, Revision 1
must be used. If the repair eliminates the oil can, accomplishment
of this repair constitutes terminating action for the repetitive
eddy current inspection requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD
for that location only. However, the repetitive detailed inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD is still required. If any oil
can remains after the repair, repeat the eddy current inspection
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 1,000 flight cycles.

Indication of Previous Oil Can Repairs

    (j) If any previous oil can repair is found during the detailed
inspection required by paragraph (f) or (g) of this AD, before
further flight, do a detailed inspection of the web for cracks and
oil cans, as shown in Figure 4 or Figure 5, as applicable, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2482, dated October 3, 2002; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008. After the
effective date of this AD, Revision 1 must be used.
    (1) If no crack and no oil can are found, repeat the detailed
inspection in accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (2) If any oil can is found, before further flight, do the eddy
current inspection for cracks, as shown in Figure 3 of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated October 3, 2002; or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008.
After the effective date of this AD, Revision 1 must be used. If no
crack is found during the eddy current inspection required by this
paragraph, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of
this AD, as applicable, at the time specified in the applicable
paragraph.

Repair of Cracks

    (k) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this
AD, before further flight, repair in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2482, dated October 3, 2002; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008. After the
effective date of this AD, Revision 1 must be used. If any crack or
damage exceeds limits specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2482, dated October 3, 2002; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008; and Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated October 3, 2002; or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008;
specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further
flight, repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the
type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing
Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings; or
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (m) of this AD. For a repair method to be approved, the
approval must specifically reference this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

    (l) As of the effective date of this AD, if any crack or damage
is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008,
specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action (repair data):
Before further flight, repair the crack or damage using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(m) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S,
FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2004-16-09
are not approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of
paragraph (f) of this AD. They are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and
(l) of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482,
dated October 3, 2002; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482,
Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008; as applicable; to perform the
actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2482,

Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008, in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) On September 13, 2004 (69 FR 48133, August 9, 2004), the
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated
October 3, 2002.
    (3) Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data &
Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com;
for a copy of this service information.
    (4) You may review copies of the 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> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_oflowbar;federal--
regulations/ibr--locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 29, 2009.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-3272 Filed 2-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                 United States Environmental Protection Agency                                                                        Docket Index for                             [EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0062]                                         Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans,  State of California, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, New Source Review

      	Docket Index        Category/ Item 	Number

I.	SIP Submittal Documents

# SIP submittal letter from CARB dated March 17, 2009 I-A # Rule 2201 amended on December 18, 2008  -  Clean Copy I-B # Rule 2201 amended  on December 18, 2008  -  Strikeout I-C # Rule 2530 amended on December 18, 2008  -  Clean Copy I-D # Rule 2530 amended on December 18, 2008  -  Strikeout I-E # SJVUAPCD, Final Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Rule 2201 and Rule 2530, December 18, 2008 I-F # SIP submittal letter from CARB dated March 7, 2008 I-G # Rule 2020 amended on December 20, 2007  -  Clean Copy I-H # Rule 2020 amended  on December 20, 2007  -  Strikeout I-I # SJVUAPCD, Final Staff Report, Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 2020, Rule 4621, Rule 4622, and Rule 4624, January 10, 2008 I-J

II.	Federal Register Notices

# 45 FR 52676 (August 7, 1980) II-A # 46 FR 42450 (August 21, 1981) II-B # 47 FR 19694 (May 7, 1982) II-C # 47 FR 28617 (July 1, 1982) II-D # 50 FR 7591 (February 25, 1985) II-E # 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992) II-F # 61 FR 18500 (April 26, 1996) II-G # 64 FR 51493 (September 23, 1999) II-H # 65 FR 58252 (September 28, 2000) II-I # 66 FR 37587 (July 19, 2001) II-J # 66 FR 56476 (November 8, 2001) II-K # 67 FR 35990 (May 22, 2002) II-L # 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002) II-M # 68 FR 7321 (February 13, 2003) II-N # 68 FR 7327 (February 13, 2003) II-O # 68 FR 7330 (February 13, 2003) II-P # 68 FR 8830 (February 26, 2003) II-Q # 68 FR 9561 (February 28, 2003) II-R # 68 FR 37746 (June 25, 2003) II-S # 68 FR 63021 (November 7, 2003) II-T # 69 FR 20550 (April 16, 2004) II-U # 69 FR 21731 (April 22, 2004) II-V # 69 FR 27837 (May 17, 2004) II-W # 71 FR 7683 (February 14, 2006) II-X # 71 FR 8461 (February 17, 2006) II-Y # 71 FR 75690 (December 18, 2006) II-Z # 72 FR 29886 (May 30, 2007) II-AA # 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) II-BB # 72 FR 72607 (December 21, 2007) II-CC # 73 FR 1819 (January 10, 2008) II-DD # 73 FR 9260 (February 20, 2008) II-EE # 73 FR 66759 (November 12, 2008) II-FF # 74 FR 43654 (August 27, 2009) II-GG # 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009) II-HH

III.	Other Relevant Documents

# Submittal Completeness Letter  for Rule 2020 dated April 17, 2008 III-A # Submittal Completeness Letter  for Rules 2201 & 2530 dated April 20, 2009 III-B # SJVUAPCD, Rules 2020 and 2201, as amended September 21, 2006, "District's Clean Air Act 110(l) Analysis," dated November 20, 2007. III-C # SJVUAPCD, Rule 2530, as amended on December 18, 2008, "Analysis of VOC Limits Which Were Not Changed During Rule Amendment," undated III-D # SJVUAPCD, Memorandum, "Estimate of SOx Impacts of Rule 2020 (Exemptions) Change," November 13, 2009 III-E # SJVUAPCD Rule 2020 (Exemptions), amended December 19, 2002 (i.e., the version in the existing applicable SIP) III-F # SJVUAPCD Rule 2020 (Exemptions), amended September 17, 1998 III-G # SJVUAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), amended December 19, 2002 (i.e., the version in the existing applicable SIP) III-H # SJVUAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), amended September 21, 2006 III-I # SJVUAPCD Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit), adopted June 15, 1995 (i.e., the version in the existing applicable SIP) III-J # CH&SC section 39011.5 III-K # CH&SC section 42301.16 III-L # CH&SC section 42301.17 III-M # CH&SC section 42301.18 III-N # SJVUAPCD Rule 4550 (Conservation Management Practices), re-adopted August 19, 2004 III-O # SJVUAPCD Rule 8011 (General Requirements), amended August 19, 2004 III-P # SJVUAPCD Rule 8081 (Agricultural Sources), amended September 16, 2004 III-Q # ARB SIP Submittal Letter, dated November 15, 2004, and excerpts of the related San Joaquin Valley 2004 Ozone Plan (adopted October 8, 2004) III-R # ARB SIP Submittal Letter, dated November 16, 2007, and excerpts of the related San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan Emission Inventory, and the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation (adopted September 20, 2007) III-S # ARB SIP Submittal Letter, dated November 16, 2007, and excerpts of the related San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan (adopted April 30, 2007) III-T # ARB SIP Submittal Letter, dated June 30, 2008, and excerpts of the related San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan (adopted April 30, 2008) III-U # EPA Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Directors, "Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act)," dated January 25, 1995 III-V # EPA, Technical Support Document for Potential to Emit Guidance Memo, Documentation of Emission Calculations, April 1998 III-W # California Attorney General Letter to EPA dated November 3, 2003 III-X # Senate Bill 700 III-Y # CAPCOA, White Paper on SB 700, undated. III-Z # Association of Irritated Residents v. C&R Vanderham Dairy, Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on [certain issues, including failure to obtain a permit, install BACT, and purchase offsets], filed September 25, 2007 III-AA # Earthjustice Letter to ARB, dated October 10, 2006 III-BB # ARB Letter to Earthjustice, dated December 18, 2006 III-CC # Earthjustice Letter to ARB, dated May 7, 2007 III-DD # ARB Letter to CBE, NRDC, CCAT, dated May 30, 2007 III-EE # ARB Letter to CRP&E, dated May 30, 2007 III-FF # Hall v. EPA III-GG # Kentucky Resources Council v. EPA III-HH # Safe Air for Everyone (SAFE) v. EPA III-II

IV.	EPA Rulemaking Documents

# Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IV-A


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50738-50740]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20594]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67678; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-094]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Remove the Expired Pilot Under Rule 4753(c) From the NASDAQ Rule Book

August 16, 2012.
    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 August 3, 2012, 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, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. 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

    NASDAQ proposes to remove the expired pilot under Rule 4753(c) (the
``Volatility Guard'') from the NASDAQ rule book. NASDAQ will remove the
rule text 30 days after the filing date of this proposal.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *

4753. Nasdaq Halt and Imbalance Crosses

    (a)-(b) No change.
    (c) Reserved. [For a pilot period ending the earlier of July 31,
2012 or the date on which, if approved, a limit up/limit down mechanism
to address extraordinary market volatility, is approved, between 9:30
a.m. and 3:35 p.m. EST, the System will automatically monitor System
executions to determine whether the market is trading in an orderly
fashion and whether to conduct an Imbalance Cross in order to restore
an orderly market in a single Nasdaq Security.
    (1) An Imbalance Cross shall occur if the System executes a
transaction in a Nasdaq Security at a price that is beyond the
Threshold Range away from the Triggering Price for that security. The
Triggering Price for each Nasdaq Security shall be the price of any
execution by the System in that security within the prior 30 seconds.
The Threshold Range shall be determined as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Threshold range
                                                           away from
                   Execution price                     triggering price
                                                           (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1.75 and under.....................................                  15
Over $1.75 and up to $25............................                  10
Over $25 and up to $50..............................                   5
Over $50............................................                   3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) If the System determines pursuant to subsection (1) above to
conduct an Imbalance Cross in a Nasdaq Security, the System shall
automatically cease executing trades in that security for a 60-second
Display Only Period. During that 60-second Display Only Period, the
System shall:
    (A) Maintain all current quotes and orders and continue to accept
quotes and orders in that System Security; and
    (B) Disseminate by electronic means an Order Imbalance Indicator
every 5 seconds.
    (3) At the conclusion of the 60-second Display Only Period, the
System shall re-open the market by executing the Nasdaq Halt Cross as
set forth in subsection (b)(2)-(4) above.
    (4) If the opening price established by the Nasdaq Halt Cross
pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(A)-(D) above is outside the benchmarks
established by Nasdaq by a threshold amount, the Nasdaq Halt Cross will
occur at the price within the threshold amounts that best satisfies the
conditions of subparagraphs (b)(2)(A) through (D) above. Nasdaq
management shall set and modify such benchmarks and thresholds from
time to time upon prior notice to market participants.]
    (d) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to remove the expired pilot under Rule 4753(c)
from the rule book. On June 18, 2010, NASDAQ filed a rule change for
Commission approval, proposing to adopt Volatility Guard as a six month
pilot in 100 NASDAQ-listed securities.\3\ NASDAQ proposed implementing
the Volatility Guard pilot as a means to address aberrant trading
volatility on the Exchange, in part, as a response to the unprecedented
aberrant volatility witnessed on May 6, 2010 and the limited effect
that NASDAQ's market collars had in dampening such volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64071 (March 11, 2011),
76 FR 14699 (March 17, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-074). The proposal was
amended to identify the 100 pilot securities as the securities
comprising NASDAQ 100 Index. See Amendment 1 to SR-NASDAQ-2010-074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 11, 2011, the Commission approved the Volatility Guard.
Important to its subsequent determination to hold the implementation of
Volatility Guard in abeyance, NASDAQ notes that the Commission stated
in approving Volatility Guard that it may find exchange-specific
volatility moderators inconsistent with the Act once a uniform, cross-
market mechanism to address aberrant volatility is adopted.
Specifically, the Commission stated:

    [T]hat it is continuing to work diligently with the exchanges
and FINRA to develop an appropriate consistent cross-market
mechanism to moderate excessive volatility that could be applied
widely to individual exchange-listed securities and to address
commenters' concerns regarding the complexity and potential
confusion of exchange-specific volatility moderators. To the extent
the Commission approves such a mechanism, whether it be an expanded
circuit breaker with a limit up/limit down feature or otherwise, the
Commission may no longer be able to find that exchange-specific
volatility moderators--including both Nasdaq's Volatility Guard and
the NYSE's LRPs--are consistent with the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. at 14701 (emphasis added).

    During the time that the Volatility Guard pilot was progressing
through the notice and comment process with the Commission, NASDAQ
together with the other national securities exchanges and FINRA
(``SROs'') and in

consultation with the Commission, worked diligently to implement
changes to the markets to prevent another event like May 6, 2010 from
occurring. One such joint effort was a proposed limit up/limit down
mechanism to replace the single stock circuit breaker pilots currently
in place. On April 5, 2011, the SROs filed with the Commission a
national market system plan to address extraordinary market volatility,
which proposed a market-wide limit up/limit down mechanism applicable
to all NMS stocks (the ``Plan'').\5\ Because NASDAQ believed that a
limit up/limit down mechanism, as proposed in the Plan, would be
preferable to disparate individual market solutions to aberrant
volatility, and because the Commission indicated that it may not find
exchange-specific volatility moderators consistent with the Act, the
Exchange determined to extend the pilot to January 31, 2011 yet hold
implementation of the Volatility Guard pilot in abeyance.\6\ On January
27, 2012, NASDAQ filed an immediately effective filing to extend the
operative period of the Volatility Guard pilot, while continuing to
hold it in abeyance, so that it would expire the earlier of July 31,
2012 or the date on which, if approved, a limit up/limit down mechanism
to address extraordinary market volatility, is approved.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64547 (May 25, 2011), 76
FR 31647 (June 1, 2011) (File No. 4-631).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65176 (August 19, 2011),
76 FR 53518 (August 26, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-117).
    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66275 (January 30,
2012), 77 FR 5606 (February 3, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan on a pilot basis,
with an implementation date of February 4, 2013.\8\ In approving the
Plan, the Commission stated:

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77
FR 33498 (June 6, 2012).

    The Commission notes that some of the comments focused on the
relation between the Plan, and other, exchange-specific volatility
mechanisms, including the NYSE Liquidity Replenishment Points, and
the Nasdaq Volatility Guard. While a stated purpose of the Plan is
to replace the current single-stock circuit breaker, the Commission
is also aware of the potential for unnecessary complexity that could
result if the Plan were adopted, and exchange-specific volatility
mechanisms were retained. To this end, the Commission expects that,
upon implementation of the Plan, such exchange-specific volatility
mechanisms would be discontinued by the respective exchanges. In
that regard, the Commission notes that one such mechanism, the
Nasdaq Volatility Guard, is currently set to expire on the earlier
of July 31, 2012, or the date on which the Plan is approved by the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission.\9\

    \9\ Id. at 33510, n. 182 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the Commission's multiple statements concerning its
expectation that exchanged-based volatility moderators, such as the
Volatility Guard and the NYSE Liquidity Replenishment Point process,
would be discontinued by their respective exchanges, NASDAQ is hereby
proposing to eliminate the Volatility Guard rule text from its
rulebook.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change meets these
requirements in that it promotes the adoption of the Plan's uniform,
cross-market limit up/limit down process to address aberrant volatility
by eliminating an exchange-specific process that may add complexity and
be potentially confusing to market participants. In this regard, NASDAQ
notes that Volatility Guard, like other market-specific volatility
mechanisms such as the NYSE Liquidity Replenishment Point program, may
not be consistent with the Act upon implementation of the limit up/
limit down mechanism to address extraordinary market volatility.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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)(ii) of the Act \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-094 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-094. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-094 and should be submitted on or before
September 12, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20594 Filed 8-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 31063]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13883]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0653; FRL-9995-80-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces
and Argon Oxygen Decarburization Vessels (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Steel Plants: Electric
Arc Furnaces and Argon Oxygen Decarburization Vessels (EPA ICR Number
1060.18, OMB Control Number 2060-0038), to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through August 31, 2019. Public comments were
previously requested, via the Federal Register, on May 30, 2018 during
a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days
for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may
neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0653, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Steel
Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon Oxygen Decarburization Vessels
(40 CFR part 60, subpart AA) were proposed on October 21, 1974,
promulgated on September 23, 1975, and most recently-amended on
February 22, 2005. These regulations apply to electric arc furnaces and
dust-handling systems that commenced construction, modification, or
reconstruction either after October 21, 1974 or on/or before August 17,
1983 at steel plants that produce carbon, alloy, or specialty steels.
In addition, the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for these
regulations (40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa) were proposed on August 17,
1983, promulgated on October 31, 1984, and most recently-amended on
February 22, 2005. These latter regulations apply to electric arc
furnaces, argon-oxygen decarburization vessels, and dust-handling
systems that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction
after August 17, 1983 at steel plants that produce carbon, alloy, or
specialty steels. New facilities include those that commenced
construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of
proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with
40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa.
    In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NSPS.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Steel plants that produce carbon,
alloy, or specialty steels: Electric arc furnaces (EAFs), argon oxygen
decarburization (AOD) vessels, and dust handling systems.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60
Subparts AA and AAa).
    Estimated number of respondents: 100.66 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 62,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $7,350,000 (per year), which includes
$207,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes. The
adjustment increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR is
due to an increase in the number of new or modified sources, which is
based on an assumption of continued growth in the industry. There is
also an adjustment increase in capital and operation and maintenance
costs due to the increase in the number of respondents.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-13883 Filed 6-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53665]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0783]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway
(NJICW), at Atlantic City, NJ

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 draw of the US40-322 (Albany
Avenue) Bridge across Inside Thorofare, NJICW mile 70.0, at Atlantic
City, NJ. The deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed
position to vessels requesting a bridge opening in order to accommodate
the 3rd Annual Atlantic City Triathlon.

DATES: This deviation is effective 6 a.m. until 12 p.m. September 15,
2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation [USCG-2013-0783] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``Search''
box and click ``Search.'' Click on the Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. 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 deviation, call or email Kashanda L. Booker, Bridge
Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, telephone (757) 398-
6227, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
reviewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New Jersey Department of Transportation,
on behalf of the Atlantic City Emergency Management Office, has
requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations
of the US40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge across Inside Thorofare, NJICW
mile 70.0, at Atlantic City. The closure has been requested to ensure
the safety of the runners and spectators that will be participating in
the triathlon, on Sunday September 15, 2013.
    Under this temporary deviation, the US40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge
will remain in the closed position from 6 a.m. through 12 p.m., on
Sunday, September 15, 2013.
    In the closed position to vessels, the available vertical clearance
of this bascule bridge is approximately 10 feet, above mean high water.
The current operating regulation is outlined at 33 CFR 117.733(f),
which requires that on the weekdays during this time of year, the
bridge shall open on signal; except that from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the
draw need only open if at least four hours of notice is given, from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., the draw need only open on
the hour and half hour, and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. the draw need not
open.
    Vessels that can pass under the drawbridge without an opening may
do so at all times. In the event of an emergency, the drawbridge will
be able to open for vessels.
    The Atlantic Ocean is an alternate route for vessels with mast
heights greater than 10 feet. The Coast Guard will inform the users of
the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the
closure periods so that vessels can plan their transits to minimize any
impact caused by the temporary deviation. At all other times during the
effected period, the bridge will operate as outlined at 33 CFR
117.733(f).
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 21, 2013.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-21172 Filed 8-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P