[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65635-65637]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20514]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1885; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01484-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-401 and
-402 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of moisture in
the wing-to-fuselage joint, between the mating front spar and rear spar
frame segments. This proposed AD would require a visual inspection of
the fuselage front and rear spar frames, an ultrasonic test if
applicable, other specified actions, and repair if necessary. The FAA
is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 9,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1885; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Dash 8 Series Customer
Response Centre, 5800 Explorer Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5K9,
Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: dehavilland.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-
228-7300; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1885; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-01484-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Deep
Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.

Background

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Transport Canada AD CF-2022-63, dated November 17, 2022
(Transport Canada AD CF-2022-63) (also referred to as the MCAI), to
correct an unsafe condition on certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada
Limited Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states several
reports of moisture have been found in the wing-to-fuselage joint,
between the mating front spar and rear spar frame segments. This
condition, if not corrected, could lead to corrosion and structural
degradation of the wing-to-fuselage joint and possible wing separation
from the airplane.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1885.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service
Bulletin 84-53-81, Revision A, dated August 23, 2022. This service
information specifies procedures for a general visual inspection of the
fuselage front and rear spar frames (including around the frame bolts)
for signs of moisture (i.e., stains and streaks). If signs of moisture
ingress are noted in the affected structure because of this inspection,
then an ultrasonic test and other specified actions will be required,
which includes installing a sealant plug, refinishing the frame edge
sealing, and removing the existing frame recess sealant between the
frame and struts in the cabin.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal

course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
the service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM
after determining that the unsafe condition previously described is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described. This proposed AD would
also require repairing any corrosion or structural degradation found
during the ultrasonic test.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 41 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,360........................          $3,134           $4,494         $184,254
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

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.
    The FAA is 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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate Previously
Held by Bombardier, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2023-1885; Project
Identifier MCAI-2022-01484-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by November 9, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-401 and
-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers
4001 and 4003 through 4624 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of moisture in the wing-to-
fuselage joint, between the mating front spar and rear spar frame
segments. The FAA is issuing this AD to address corrosion and
structural degradation of the wing-to-fuselage joint. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in wing separation from
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    At the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph (g)(1)
or (2) of this AD, in accordance with Section 3.B., of the
Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada
Service Bulletin 84-53-81, Revision A, dated August 23, 2022,
complete a general visual inspection of the fuselage spar frames and
around the frame bolts for signs of moisture ingress (i.e., stains
and streaks), accomplish other specified actions, and if necessary,
perform an ultrasonic test. Do all applicable ultrasonic tests
before further flight. If, during any ultrasonic test, any corrosion
or structural degradation is found, before further flight, repair
using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or De Havilland Aircraft of Canada
Limited's Transport Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.
    (1) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
have accumulated less than 32,000 total flight cycles: before
accumulating 40,000 total flight cycles.
    (2) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
have accumulated 32,000 or more total flight cycles: within 8,000
flight hours or 48 months, whichever occurs first after the
effective date of this AD.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using De Havilland Aircraft

of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-53-81, dated May 27, 2022.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager,
International Validation Branch, mail it to the address identified
in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or De Havilland
Aircraft of Canada Limited's Transport Canada Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2022-63, dated November 17,
2022, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1885.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Deep Gaurav,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-
53-81, Revision A, dated August 23, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Dash 8 Series Customer
Response Centre, 5800 Explorer Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5K9,
Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: dehavilland.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this 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, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 18, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-20514 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 42850-42852]
[DOCID:fr23jy08-85]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58183; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-035]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
To Amend the By-Laws of the NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. in Connection With
the Acquisitions of Boston Stock Exchange, Incorporated and
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

July 17, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On April 21, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change
(``NASDAQ OMX By-Law Proposal'') to amend the by-laws (``NASDAQ OMX By-
Laws'') of its parent corporation, The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ
OMX''). The NASDAQ OMX By-Law Proposal was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 8, 2008.\3\ The Commission received no comment
letters regarding the NASDAQ OMX By-Law Proposal. On July 3, 2008,
Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the NASDAQ OMX By-Law Proposal.\4\ This
order approves the NASDAQ OMX By-Law Proposal, as modified by Amendment
No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57761 (May 1, 2008),
73 FR 26182 (SR-NASDAQ-2008-035) (``NASDAQ OMX By-Law Proposal
Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, Nasdaq proposes to correct typographical
errors in the proposed amendments to NASDAQ OMX By-Laws Sections
11.3 and 12.5. Because Amendment No. 1 is technical in nature, the
Commission is not publishing it for comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    NASDAQ OMX and the Boston Stock Exchange, Incorporated (``BSE''), a
national securities exchange, have

entered into an agreement pursuant to which NASDAQ OMX would acquire
all of the outstanding membership interests in BSE (``BSE
Acquisition'').\5\ Also, NASDAQ OMX and the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange, Inc., (``Phlx''), a national securities exchange, have
entered into an agreement pursuant to which NASDAQ OMX would acquire
all of the outstanding capital stock of Phlx (``Phlx Acquisition,''
together with the BSE Acquisition, the ``Acquisitions''). Today, the
Commission approved proposed rule changes by Phlx in connection with
the Phlx Acquisition, that include, among other things, the same
amended NASDAQ OMX By-Laws that are the subject of this proposal by
Nasdaq.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NASDAQ OMX would not acquire BSE's interest in Boston
Options Exchange Group, LLC, the operator of BSE's options trading
facility, the Boston Options Exchange (``BOX'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58179 (July 17,
2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-31) (order approving proposed changes relating
to the acquisition of Phlx by NASDAQ OMX) (``Phlx Order'') at
sections III.B and III.C.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the Acquisitions, Nasdaq would maintain its current
registration as a national securities exchange, and would maintain
rules, membership rosters, and listings that would be separate and
distinct from the rules, membership rosters, and listings of BSE and
Phlx.\7\ As a result of the Acquisitions, NASDAQ OMX also would acquire
BSE's wholly-owned subsidiary, the Boston Stock Exchange Clearing
Corporation (``BSECC''), and Phlx's wholly-owned subsidiary, the Stock
Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia (``SCCP''), both registered
clearing agencies.\8\ Following the closing of the Acquisitions, NASDAQ
OMX would be the sole owner of five self-regulatory organizations
(``SROs''): Nasdaq, BSE, BSECC, Phlx, and SCCP (collectively, ``SRO
Subsidiaries'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NASDAQ OMX By-Law Proposal Notice, supra note 3, at
26183.
    \8\ See NASDAQ OMX By-Laws Proposal Notice, supra note 3, at
26182-26183. After the Acquisitions, Phlx would continue to operate
SCCP and BSE would continue to operate BSECC. See Phlx Order, supra
note 6, and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57757 (May 1, 2008),
73 FR 26159 (May 8, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-23) (notice proposing, among
other things, changes to BSE's governing documents and rules in
connection with NASDAQ OMX's acquisition of BSE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although NASDAQ OMX is not itself an SRO, its activities with
respect to the operations of its SRO Subsidiaries must be consistent
with, and must not interfere with, the self-regulatory obligations of
the SRO Subsidiaries. Further, certain provisions of NASDAQ OMX's
Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws are rules of an exchange if
they are stated policies, practices, or interpretations, as defined in
Rule 19b-4 under the Act, of the self-regulatory organization, and must
be filed with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act and
Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\9\ Accordingly, Nasdaq has filed with the
Commission proposed changes to the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes to NASDAQ OMX By-Laws filed by Nasdaq would expand the
application of certain provisions of NASDAQ OMX's Restated Certificate
of Incorporation and NASDAQ OMX's By-Laws to include each of NASDAQ
OMX's SRO Subsidiaries. These provisions of NASDAQ OMX's governing
documents currently apply only to Nasdaq and are designed to maintain
the independence of each SRO Subsidiary's self-regulatory function;
enable each SRO Subsidiary to operate in a manner that complies with
the federal securities laws; and facilitate the ability of each SRO
Subsidiary and the Commission to fulfill their regulatory and oversight
obligations under the Act.
    After careful review and for the reasons discussed more fully
below, the Commission finds that the NASDAQ OMX By-Law Proposal is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\10\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\11\ which
requires, among other things, that a national securities exchange be so
organized and have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act,
and to comply and enforce compliance by its members and persons
associated with its members, with the provisions of the Act, the rules
and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Self-Regulatory Function of the SRO Subsidiaries; Relationship
Between NASDAQ OMX and the SRO Subsidiaries; Jurisdiction Over NASDAQ
OMX

    Although NASDAQ OMX does not itself carry out regulatory functions
for Nasdaq and will not carry out regulatory functions for its other
SRO Subsidiaries, its activities with respect to the operation of its
SRO Subsidiaries, including Nasdaq, must be consistent and not
interfere with their respective self-regulatory obligations. The NASDAQ
OMX Certificate and the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws include certain provisions,
approved by the Commission in the context of Nasdaq's registration as a
national securities exchange,\12\ that are designed to maintain the
independence of Nasdaq's self-regulatory function from NASDAQ OMX,
enable Nasdaq to operate in a manner that complies with the federal
securities laws, including the objectives of Sections 6(b) and 19(g) of
the Act,\13\ and facilitate the ability of Nasdaq and the Commission to
fulfill their regulatory and oversight obligations under the Act.\14\
Nasdaq's proposed rule change would make these provisions applicable to
all of NASDAQ OMX's SRO Subsidiaries.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (January 13,
2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006) (``Nasdaq Exchange Registration
Approval Order'') at notes 27-34 and accompanying text.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g).
    \14\ See Sections 11.3 and 12.1-12.5, NASDAQ OMX By-Laws.
    \15\ Nasdaq proposes to add a definition of ``Self-Regulatory
Subsidiary'' that includes each SRO Subsidiary. Self-Regulatory
Subsidiary would mean each of (i) Nasdaq; (ii) upon the closing of
their acquisition by NASDAQ OMX, BSE and BSECC; and (iii) upon the
closing of their acquisition by NASDAQ OMX, Phlx and SCCP. See
proposed Article I(o), NASDAQ OMX By-Laws. The proposed rule change
would expand the applicability of the Section 11.3 and each section
of Article XII of the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws, currently applicable only
to Nasdaq, to also include BSE, BSECC, Phlx and SCCP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, as amended, the By-Laws of NASDAQ OMX specify that
NASDAQ OMX and its officers, directors, employees, and agents
irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the United States federal
courts, the Commission, and each self-regulatory subsidiary of NASDAQ
OMX for the purposes of any suit, action or proceeding pursuant to the
United States federal securities laws, and the rules and regulations
thereunder, arising out of, or relating to, the activities of any self-
regulatory subsidiary.\16\ Further, NASDAQ OMX agreed to provide the
Commission with access to its books and records.\17\ NASDAQ OMX also
agreed to keep confidential non-public information relating to the
self-regulatory function \18\ of each SRO

Subsidiary, including Nasdaq, and not to use such information for any
non-regulatory purpose. In addition, the board of directors of NASDAQ
OMX (``NASDAQ OMX Board''), as well as NASDAQ OMX's officers,
employees, and agents, are required to give due regard to the
preservation of the independence of each SRO Subsidiary's, including
Nasdaq's, self-regulatory function.\19\ Similarly, the NASDAQ OMX
Board, when evaluating any issue, would be required to take into
account the potential impact on the integrity, continuity, and
stability of the SRO Subsidiaries.\20\ Finally, the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws
require that any changes to the NASDAQ OMX Certificate and By-Laws be
submitted to the Board of Directors of each of its SRO Subsidiaries,
including Nasdaq, and, if such amendment is required to be filed with
the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, such change shall
not be effective until filed with, or filed with and approved by, the
Commission.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See proposed Section 12.3, NASDAQ OMX By-Laws.
    \17\ See proposed Section 12.1(c), NASDAQ OMX By-Laws. To the
extent that they relate to the activities of Nasdaq, all books,
records, premises, officers, directors, and employees of NASDAQ OMX
would be deemed to be those of the Nasdaq. See id.
    \18\ This requirement to keep confidential non-public
information relating to the self-regulatory function shall not limit
the Commission's ability to access and examine such information or
limit the ability of directors, officers, or employees of the NASDAQ
OMX from disclosing such information to the Commission. See proposed
Section 12.1(b), NASDAQ OMX By-Laws. Other holding companies with
SRO subsidiaries have undertaken similar commitments. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56955 (December 13, 2007), 72 FR
71979, 71983 (December 19, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-101) (order approving
the acquisition of International Securities Exchange, LLC's parent,
International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc., by Eurex Frankfurt
AG).
    \19\ See Section 12.1(a), NASDAQ OMX By-Laws. Also, NASDAQ OMX's
officers, directors, agents and employees agree to cooperate with
the Commission and each SRO Subsidiary in respect of their
respective regulatory responsibilities. See proposed Section 12.2,
NASDAQ OMX By-Laws.
    Further, pursuant to proposed Section 12.4 of the NASDAQ OMX By-
Laws, NASDAQ OMX agreed to take such action as is necessary to
insure that its officers, directors, employees and agents consent in
writing to the applicability of Sections 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 of the
NASDAQ OMX By-Laws with respect to activities related to each SRO
Subsidiary.
    \20\ See proposed Section 12.7, NASDAQ OMX By-Laws.
    \21\ See proposed Sections 11.3 and 12.6, NASDAQ OMX By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws, as amended to
accommodate the Acquisitions, are designed to continue to facilitate
Nasdaq's ability to fulfill its self-regulatory obligations and are,
therefore, consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission
believes these changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the
Act,\22\ which requires, among other things, that a national securities
exchange be so organized and have the capacity to carry out the
purposes of the Act, and to comply and enforce compliance by its
members and persons associated with its members, with the provisions of
the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that under Section 20(a) of the Act
\23\ any person with a controlling interest in NASDAQ OMX would be
jointly and severally liable with and to the same extent that NASDAQ
OMX is liable under any provision of the Act, unless the controlling
person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce
the act or acts constituting the violation or cause of action. In
addition, Section 20(e) of the Act \24\ creates aiding and abetting
liability for any person who knowingly provides substantial assistance
to another person in violation of any provision of the Act or rule
thereunder. Further, Section 21C of the Act \25\ authorizes the
Commission to enter a cease-and-desist order against any person who has
been ``a cause of'' a violation of any provision of the Act through an
act or omission that the person knew or should have known would
contribute to the violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78t(a).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78t(e).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78u-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Exemptions From Voting Limitations

    The NASDAQ OMX Certificate imposes limits on direct and indirect
changes in control, which are designed to prevent any shareholder from
exercising undue control over the operation of Nasdaq and to ensure
that Nasdaq and the Commission are able to carry out their regulatory
obligations under the Act. \26\ Specifically, no person who
beneficially owns shares of common stock, preferred stock, or notes of
NASDAQ OMX in excess of 5% of the securities generally entitled to vote
may vote the shares in excess of 5%.\27\ No changes to these
limitations are proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Nasdaq Exchange Registration Approval Order, supra note
12, at 3552.
    \27\ See Article Fourth.C, NASDAQ OMX Certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASDAQ OMX Board may approve exemptions from the 5% voting
limitations for any person that is not a broker-dealer, an affiliate of
a broker-dealer, or a person subject to a statutory disqualification
under Section 3(a)(39) of the Act,\28\ so long as the NASDAQ OMX Board
also determines that granting such exemption would be consistent with
the self-regulatory obligations of Nasdaq.\29\ Further, any such
exemption from the 5% voting limitations would not be effective until
approved by the Commission pursuant to Section 19 of the Act.\30\
Nasdaq's proposed rule change reflects an amendment to the NASDAQ OMX
By-Laws to require the NASDAQ OMX Board, prior to approving any
exemption from the 5% voting limitations, to determine that granting
such exemption would be consistent with the self-regulatory obligations
of each SRO Subsidiary, including Nasdaq.\31\ Therefore, there is no
change in the application of this provision to Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39). See Article Fourth.C.6, NASDAQ OMX
Certificate.
    \29\ Specifically, the NASDAQ OMX Board must determine that
granting such exemption would (1) not reasonably be expected to
diminish the quality of, or public confidence in, NASDAQ OMX or the
other operations of NASDAQ OMX, on the ability to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices and on investors and the public,
and (2) promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to and
facilitating transactions in securities or assist in the removal of
impediments to or perfection of the mechanisms for a free and open
market and a national market system. See Article Fourth.C.6, NASDAQ
OMX Certificate.
    \30\ See Section 12.5, NASDAQ OMX By-Laws.
    \31\ See proposed Section 12.5, NASDAQ OMX By-Laws. These
provisions would apply for so long as NASDAQ OMX controls, directly
or indirectly, any SRO Subsidiary. Id. See also supra note 20 and
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the foregoing change to the NASDAQ OMX
By-Laws to reflect NASDAQ OMX's ownership of multiple SRO Subsidiaries
is consistent with the Act.

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\32\ that the NASDAQ OMX By-Law Proposal (SR-NASDAQ-2008-035), as
modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, be, and hereby is, approved.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16828 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ANNUAL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS COMPLIANCE REPORT 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection Annual Public Water Systems Compliance Report, ICR Number 1812.02 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract Section 1414 ( c)( 3)( A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that each state ( a term that includes states, commonwealths and territories) that has primary enforcement authority under the Act shall prepare, make readily available to the public, and submit to the Administrator of EPA, an annual report of violations of national primary drinking water regulations in the state.

These Annual State Public Water System Compliance Reports are to include violations of maximum contaminant levels, treatment requirements, variances and exemptions, and monitoring requirements determined to be significant by the Administrator after consultation with the states.

To minimize a state's burden in preparing its annual statutorily required report, EPA issued guidance that explains what Section 1414( c)( 3)( A) requires and provides model language and reporting templates. EPA also annually makes available to the states a computer query that generates for each state ( from information states are already separately required to submit to EPA's national database on a quarterly basis) the required violations information in a table consistent with the reporting template in EPA's guidance.

Fifty four states ( including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and  2 the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) currently have primary enforcement authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The State of Wyoming and the District of Columbia neither currently have primary enforcement authority nor are currently seeking primary authority, so the number of 54 states is unlikely to change during the next three years. The cost of this ICR to each state with primary enforcement authority will be approximately $ 12,400 during each year of this ICR.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection As stated above, Section 1414 ( c)( 3)( A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that each state that has primary enforcement authority under the Act shall prepare, make readily available to the public, and submit to the Administrator of EPA, an annual report of violations of national primary drinking water regulations in the state. The states' reports are to include violations of maximum contaminant levels, treatment requirements, variances and exemptions, and monitoring requirements determined to be significant by the Administrator after consultation with the states. Section 1414( c)( 3)( B) of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to prepare and make available to the public an annual report that summarizes and evaluates the reports submitted by the states pursuant to subparagraph ( A).

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data EPA summarizes the data submitted by the states and uses that information in preparing its annual report that provides an national overview of the compliance performance of public water systems. In its annual national report, must also use the violations data provided specified by the states to make recommendations concerning the resources necessary to improve compliance with  3 the Safe Drinking Water Act. The information submitted by the states also helps EPA identify and resolve discrepancies between violations data in the states' reports and the violations data states submit quarterly to EPA's national database.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication The information to be obtained under this ICR has not been collected by EPA or any other federal agency. States are required to report public water system violations to EPA's national database on a quarterly basis, but states cannot satisfy their obligations under Section 1414( c)( 3)( A) simply by referring interested parties to EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System/ Federal System ( SDWIS/ FED). EPA works with states to ensure they can efficiently extract from SDWIS/ FED the calendar year violations data they need to prepare a report in which the violations data are readily available to the public. Some states elect not to use the EPAprovided query to extract the essential reporting data from SDWIS/ FED, and use their own data systems instead.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on February 5, 2000. No comments were received.

3( c) Consultations To obtain comments from actual respondents regarding the annual public water systems compliance report and the corresponding burden hour estimates, EPA staff consulted with the following individuals:

Name Telephone Telephone  4 Mary Alvey 503 731 43810 Oregon Health Division Darron Busch 605 773 3754 South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Damon Guterman 617 574 6811 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Robert Payne 804 371 2885 Virginia Department of Health Joanne Wagner 402 471 2541 Nebraska Department of Health As states have now completed four of these annual reports, most now simply generate the necessary data from SDWIS/ FED, confirm the accuracy of the numbers, and update the previous year's report. As a result, the burden hours associated with preparing a report have decreased significantly. EPA's burden hour estimates reflect input from these consultations.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Because Section 1414( c)( 3)( A) requires the states to prepare these reports annually and to make the reports readily available to the public, states do not have the option of collecting this information less frequently.

3( e) General Guidelines All of the collection activities described within this ICR fall within OMB's General Guidelines.

3( f) Confidentiality The required information consists of violations data and other information that are a matter of public record. None of the information collected as part of the states' annual public water systems compliance report comprises confidential business information.

3( g) Sensitive Questions  5 No questions of a sensitive nature are asked or answered in the states' annual public water systems compliance report.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are states that have received primary enforcement authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The term " state", in this context can include states, commonwealths, territories, and Indian Tribes. Currently, primary enforcement authority has been approved for every state but Wyoming, and for the U. S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Primary enforcement authority has not been approved for the District of Columbia or for Indian Tribes.

EPA has primary enforcement authority in those jurisdictions and is likely to retain that during the three year duration of this ICR.

4( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED ( i) Data Items The reporting items as required by section 1414( c)( 3)( A) include:

° State name and reporting period ° Full report, including a description of the data in the Summary of Violations chart,

specific information on the violation categories for each rule identified on the chart, a list of the systems that had maximum contaminant level or treatment technique requirement violations, explanations of any aggregated number of violations, and a description of systems that were out of compliance during the year, a discussion of variance or exemption violations;  6 ° Summary report, including a description of the data on violations, a list of the systems that had maximum contaminant level or treatment technique requirement violations, and a discussion of variance or exemption violations; and ° Reviewed and completed Summary of Violations chart.

In addition to these items, States are encouraged to provide optional information as outlined EPA guidance. EPA provided guidance to the States's to assist them in the development of their statutorily mandated reports.

ii. Respondent Activities States will need to conduct the following activities in order to complete and submit their Annual State Public Water Systems Compliance Report.

° Review the instructions and other necessary materials;

° Gather inventory and violations data from SDWIS/ FED and from their own data bases;

° Review and analyze inventory and violations data from SDWIS/ FED and from their own data bases;

° Prepare summary of violations of variances and exemptions; and ° Prepare report and submit to EPA in hard copy or hard copy and electronic version, make report readily available to the public, prepare and distribute a summary of the report.

5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management  7 5( a) Agency Activities During the lifetime of this ICR, EPA Headquarters activities associated with the Annual State Public Water Systems Compliance Report consist of the following:

° Modify guidance documents as necessary and distribute to states and EPA Regional Offices;

° Prepare and distribute tools for states and EPA Regional Offices to use to gather data from SDWIS/ FED ( annual activity);

° Answer questions from states and EPA Regional Offices ( annual activity);

° Provide support for Indian Land reporting ( annual activity); and ° Review Annual State Public Water System Compliance Reports, and data from SDWIS/ FED, prepare the Annual National Public Water Systems Compliance Report that summarized and evaluates the annual state reports, and distribute the national report.

EPA Regional Offices will need to complete the following activities to prepare Annual State Public Water Systems Compliance Reports for states that do not have primary enforcement authority, to gather public water system compliance data for Indian lands, and to assist the states as they prepare their reports:

° Assist EPA Headquarters in the development and distribution of any necessary guidance materials;

° Assist EPA Headquarters in the development and distribution of tools for gathering data from SDWIS/ FED ( annual activity);

° Provide general guidance to all states in the Region for completing the Annual  8 state Public Water Systems Compliance Report;

° Gather information from SDWIS/ FED for each Indian land in the Region;

° Prepare a summary of variances and exemptions violations in each Indian land in the Region;

° Gather and submit to EPA Headquarters inventory and violations information from SDWIS/ FED for each Indian land in the Region, information about enforcement and compliance assistance activities related to the Safe Drinking Water Act on Indian lands in the Region, and information about financial assistance related to implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act on Indian lands in the Region;

° Prepare Annual State Public water Systems Compliance Report for each State in the Region that does not have primary enforcement authority and submit it to EPA Headquarters in hard copy or hard copy and electronic version, make report readily available to the public, prepare and distribute a summary of the report.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management EPA asks States with primary enforcement authority to submit their Annual State Public Water System Reports to in electronic ( WordPerfect compatible) and hard copy format. Section 1414( c)( 3)( A) requires that both the Annual State Public Water Systems Compliance Reports and the State prepared summaries be accessible to the public. In its guidance, EPA recommends that States and EPA Regions use one or more of the following mechanisms for making the reports and summaries readily available:

° Publish an official notice in newspapers regarding the availability of the report or summary;  9 ° Conduct a press conference, issue a press release, or incorporate a notice into standard press conferences to announce report availability;

° Prepare notices for distribution in public libraries and other public buildings;

° Provide copies of the report for review at public offices and locations, libraries,

web sites, state/ local departments of health, etc; and ° Include notices of availability in local, state and EPA web sites.

Additionally, EPA's national report, which will summarize the data collected from the states, will be posted on the Internet.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility None of the states, commonwealths, or territories affected by this ICR are small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

5( d) Collection Schedule Each Annual State Public Water Systems Compliance Report covers violations that occurred in a calendar year. States with primary enforcement authority have six months after the end of each calendar year to prepare their Reports, which are due to EPA on the first of July.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden Table 1 presents the burden hours and costs per respondent as well as for all respondents during each year covered by this ICR. Preparing an Annual State Public Water Systems Compliance Report involves reviewing and describing information on public water systems violations. EPA encourages states to rely on SDWIS/ FED data for this purpose, as the states are already obligated to provide data to SDWIS/ FED on a quarterly basis. EPA further facilitates this  10 process by providing a set of computer queries to the states every year that extracts from SDWIS/ FED the violations data each state needs to prepare its annual report. Some states prefer to extract data from their own databases. Each state must also prepare a narrative describing any violations of variances or exemptions. The burden for each state of preparing an Annual State Public Water System Compliance Report is estimated to be 208 hours.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs Based on responses from the states contacted, EPA estimates an average hourly labor rate ( hourly rate plus overhead) of $ 60 for managerial staff, $ 40 for technical staff, and $ 26 for clerical staff. Table 2 presents a summary of the estimated average annual cost to respondents. No capital or operations and maintenance costs are incurred by respondents under this IC R. This ICR does not require continuous monitoring.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Table 1 presents the estimated Agency burden hours and costs associated with the information collection activities under this ICR. Other direct costs ( copying, printing, telephone,

and mailing expenses) are also included.

Based on the GSA pay schedule, EPA estimates an average hourly labor rate ( hourly rate plus the standard government overhead factor of 1.6) of $ 54 for managerial staff, $ 39 for technical staff, and $ 18 for clerical staff.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Responding to this ICR by preparing an Annual State Public Water Systems Report is a  11 statutory requirement for the 54 states with primary enforcement authority and for all 10 EPA Regions. EPA's burden estimate assumes all 54 states and 10 EPA Regions will prepare reports.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Tables See attached tables.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to the fact that states have had fours years experience preparing these report, they have established a format for their reports, and most states now simply update their report for the previous year by inserting updated data.

6( g) Burden Statement Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.  12 Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,

Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence.

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


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 63918]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26571]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR12-2-000]

ConocoPhillips Company v. SFPP, L.P.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on October 5, 2011, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 (2011), section 343.2 of the
Procedural Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 343.2,
and section 13(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 USC App.
13(1), ConocoPhillips Company (Complainant) filed a formal complaint
against SFPP, L.P. (Respondent), challenging the lawfulness of the
indexed increases in ceiling rates filed by the Respondent on September
20, 2011 in Docket No. IS11-585-000 and alleging that the Respondent
will violate the ICA by applying the increased ceiling rates which are
unjust and unreasonable for Respondent's jurisdictional interstate
service. The Complainant stated that copies of the complaint have been
served on the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 25, 2011.

    Dated: October 6, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26571 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 218)]
[Notices]
[Page 58619-58620]
[DOCID:fr13no09-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13526-001]

Bowersock Mills and Power Company; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approval
of Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

November 6, 2009.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project Nos.: 13526-001.
    c. Date Filed: October 6, 2009.
    d. Submitted by: Bowersock Mills and Power Company.
    e. Name of Projects: Bowersock Mills and Power Company Kansas River
Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Kansas River near
the town of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. The project would not
occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Sara Hill-Nelson, The Bowersock Mills and
Power Company, P.O. Box 66 Massachusetts Street, Lawrence, Kansas
66044,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Monte TerHaar,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. The Bowersock Mills and Power Company filed its request to use
the Traditional Licensing Process on September 22, 2009. The Bowersock
Mills and Power Company published public notice of its request on
September 24, 2009. In a letter dated November 5, 2009, the Director of
the Office of Energy Projects approved The Bowersock Mills and Power
Company's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at
50 CFR part 402; and (b) the Kansas State Historic Preservation
Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical Preservation
Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. The Bowersock Mills and Power Company filed a Pre-Application
Document (PAD) on October 23, 2009, including a proposed process plan
and schedule, with the Commission pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the
Commission's regulations.
    m. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    Register online at http://ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or
other pending projects.

For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27292 Filed 11-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90050-90052]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29833]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-
2001-9561; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-
2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0174; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-
2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2010-0050; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-
2010-0114; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-
2012-0106; FMCSA-2012-0159; FMCSA-2012-0160; FMCSA-2012-0161; FMCSA-
2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-
2014-0008]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 100
individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision
requirement in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before January
12, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, 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.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-1999-5578;
FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2006-24015;
FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0174;
FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2010-0050;
FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0379;
FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2012-0106; FMCSA-2012-0159; FMCSA-2012-0160;
FMCSA-2012-0161; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0006;
FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0008 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for two years 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 two-year period.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to driver a CMV if that person:

    Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each
eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected
to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant
binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or
without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in
the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize
the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and
amber.

    The 100 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable two-year period.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent

with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA
will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of
the 100 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining
an exemption from the vision requirement (63 FR 66227; 64 FR 16520; 64
FR 27027; 64 FR 51568; 64 FR 54948; 65 FR 159; 66 FR 30502; 66 FR
41654; 66 FR 66969; 67 FR 10471; 67 FR 10475; 67 FR 17102; 67 FR 19798;
68 FR 44837; 68 FR 69432; 69 FR 8260; 69 FR 17267; 69 FR 19611; 70 FR
41811; 71 FR 644; 71 FR 6824; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 14567; 71 FR 14568; 71
FR 19604; 71 FR 26601; 71 FR 30227; 71 FR 30228; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR
41310; 72 FR 52423; 73 FR 15254; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27014; 73 FR 27015;
73 FR 28187; 73 FR 35195; 73 FR 35196; 73 FR 35197; 73 FR 35198; 73 FR
35199; 73 FR 35200; 73 FR 35201; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 38497; 73 FR 38498;
73 FR 38499; 73 FR 42403; 73 FR 48273; 73 FR 48275; 74 FR 37299; 74 FR
43220; 74 FR 48344; 74 FR 57553; 74 FR 65842; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 14656;
75 FR 19674; 75 FR 20881; 75 FR 25918; 75 FR 25919; 75 FR 27622; 75 FR
28682; 75 FR 34210; 75 FR 34211; 75 FR 34212; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 36779;
75 FR 38602; 75 FR 39729; 75 FR 44051; 77 FR 7657; 77 10604; 77 FR
15184; 77 FR 17115; 77 FR 22059; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 26816; 77 FR 27847;
77 FR 27850; 77 FR 29447; 77 FR 36336; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38381; 77 FR
38384; 77 FR 38386; 77 FR 40945; 77 FR 40946; 77 FR 41879; 77 FR 44708;
77 FR 44946; 77 FR 46153; 77 FR 46795; 77 FR 51846; 77 FR 52391; 79 FR
10606; 79 FR 10619; 79 FR 14571; 79 FR 17641; 79 FR 18390; 79 FR 21996;
79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 27043; 79 FR 28588; 79 FR 29495; 79 FR
35212; 79 FR 35218; 79 FR 35220; 79 FR 37842; 79 FR 37843; 79 FR 38659;
79 FR 38661; 79 FR 40945; 79 FR 41735; 79 FR 41737; 79 FR 41740; 79 FR
46153; 79 FR 47175; 79 FR 53514; 79 FR 56102). They have submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting
each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate
commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for
each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of August
and are discussed below:
    As of August 1, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 21 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR
54948; 65 FR 159; 66 FR 41654; 66 FR 66969; 67 FR 10471; 67 FR 10475;
67 FR 17102; 67 FR 19798; 68 FR 44837; 68 FR 69432; 69 FR 8260; 69 FR
17267; 69 FR 19611; 70 FR 41811; 71 FR 644; 71 FR 6824; 71 FR 14568; 71
FR 19604; 71 FR 26601; 71 FR 30228; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 72 FR
52423; 73 FR 15254; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27014; 73 FR 27015; 73 FR 36955;
73 FR 42403; 74 FR 43220; 74 FR 57553; 74 FR 65842; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR
14656; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 20881; 75 FR 25918; 75 FR 27622; 75 FR 28682;
75 FR 36778; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 38602; 75 FR 39729; 77 FR 7657; 77
10604; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 17115; 77 FR 22059; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 26816;
77 FR 27847; 77 FR 27850; 77 FR 29447; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR
38386; 77 FR 44946; 79 FR 10606; 79 FR 10619; 79 FR 14571; 79 FR 17641;
79 FR 18390; 79 FR 21996; 79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 27043; 79 FR
28588; 79 FR 29495; 79 FR 35212; 79 FR 35218; 79 FR 35220; 79 FR 37842;
79 FR 37843; 79 FR 47175):

Lloyd J. Botsford (MO)
Brad T. Braegger (UT)
Ronald D. Danberry (MN)
Frank J. Faria (CA)
Juneau Faulkner (GA)
Curtis N. Fulbright (NC)
Randy M. Garcia (NM)
Dean D. Hawks (WI)
Larry L. Jarvis (VA)
Julian A. Mancha (TX)
Randall L. Mathis (AL)
Larry G. Nikkel (WA)
Michael J. Rankin (OH)
Justin T. Richman (IN)
Kevin L. Routin (KY)
Andrew W. Schollett (CO)
Michael D. Singleton (IN)
Roberto E. Soto (TX)
Gary R. Thomas (OH)
Barney J. Wade (MS)
Wade W. Ward (WY)
    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
Nos. FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2006-
24015; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-
0291; FMCSA-2010-0050; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2011-0324; FCMSA-2011-
0379; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-
0006. Their exemptions are effective as of August 1, 2016 and will
expire on August 1, 2018.
    As of August 6, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR
27027; 64 FR 51568; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 30227; 73 FR 27014; 75 FR 25918;
75 FR 38602; 75 FR 39729; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 27850; 77 FR 33017; 77 FR
36336; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 40946; 77 FR 44708; 77 FR 46795; 79 FR
38661):

William L. Martin (OR)
Richard L. Miller (IN)
Gerardus C. Molenaar (PA)
James R. Morgan (MI)
Lance C. Phares (NY)
Willard L. Riggle (IN)
Richard D. Tucker II (NC)
Jay Turner (OH)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2011-
0379; FMCSA-2012-0106; FMCSA-2012-0159. Their exemptions are effective
as of August 6, 2016 and will expire on August 6, 2018.
    As of August 8, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 25 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (79 FR
38659; 79 FR 53514):

Jimmy A. Baker (TX)
Frank B. Belenchia (TN)
Ricky W. Bettes (TX)
Antonio A. Calixto (MN)
James W. Carter, Jr. (KS)
Ronald G. Daniels (MO)
Larry G. Davis (TN)
Michael C. Doheny (CT)
George P. Ford (NC)
Todd M. Harguth (MN)
Dennis W. Helgeson (MN)
Ronnie L. Henry (KS)
Johnny L. Irving (MS)
Kevin L. Jones (SC)
Keith A. Kelley (ME)
David L. Miller (OH)
Earl L. Mokma (MI)
Donald L. Nisbet (WA)
David Perkins (NY)
Harry W. Root (MN)
Paul W. Sorenson (UT)
Randall H. Tempel (MT)
Cory J. Tivnan (WA)
Ricky W. Witt (IA)

John D. Woods (MI)

    The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No.
FMCSA-2014-0007. Their exemptions are effective as of August 8, 2016
and will expire on August 8, 2018.
    As of August 9, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (75 FR
34210; 75 FR 34211; 75 FR 34212; 75 FR 47888; 77 FR 40945; 79 FR
40945):

Mark S. Berkheimer (PA)
Rici W. Giesseman (OH)
Michael A. Jabro (MI)
Michael M. Martinez (NM)
Buddy W. Myrick (TX)
Alan J. Reynaldos (NJ)
Charles L. Rill, Sr. (MD)
Roger Sulfridge (KY)

    The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No.
FMCSA-2010-0114. Their exemptions are effective as of August 9, 2016
and will expire on August 9, 2018.
    As of August 18, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 32 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (63 FR
66227; 64 FR 16520; 71 FR 14567; 71 FR 30228; 73 FR 28187; 73 FR 35195;
73 FR 35196; 73 FR 35197; 73 FR 35198; 73 FR 35199; 73 FR 35200; 73 FR
35201; 73 FR 38497; 38498; 73 FR 38499; 73 FR 48273; 73 FR 48275; 74 FR
37299; 74 FR 48344; 75 FR 25919; 75 FR 39729; 75 FR 44051; 77 FR 40946;
77 FR 46153; 79 FR 46153):

Catarino Aispuro (OR)
Gary R. Andersen (NE)
Donald L. Carman (OH)
Christopher R. Cone (GA)
Walter O. Connelly (WA)
Armando P. D'Angeli (PA)
Henry L. Donvian (WV)
Roger D. Elders (MI)
James F. Epperson (IN)
Lucious J. Erwin (TX)
Riche Ford (CO)
Kevin K. Friedel (NY)
Steven G. Harter (OR)
George F. Hernandez, Jr. (AZ)
Andrew C. Kelly (WV)
Jason W. King (MT)
Billy J. Lewis (LA)
Robert W. McMillian (MA)
Richard A. Peterson (OR)
Chad M. Quarles (AL)
Carroll G. Quisenberry (KY)
Ryan J. Reimann (WI)
Jacob H. Riggle (OK)
Brandon J. See (IA)
Ricky L. Shepler (PA)
LeTroy D. Sims (SC)
John L. Stone (PA)
Nils S. Thornberg (OR)
Daniel W. Toppings (WV)
Christopher R. Whitson (NC)
Charles A. Winchell (OK)
Aaron E. Wright (MI)

    The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No.
FMCSA-1999-4334; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0174;
FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2010-0082. Their exemptions are effective as of
August 18, 2016 and will expire on August 18, 2018.
    As of August 19, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 2 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (79 FR
41737; 79 FR 56102):
Leamon V. Manchester (LA)
Leverne F. Schilte, Jr. (OH)

    The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No.
FMCSA-2014-0008. Their exemptions are effective as of August 19, 2016
and will expire on August 19, 2018.
    As of August 27, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 2 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (77 FR
38381; 77 FR 51846; 79 FR 41740):

Tyrane Harper (AL)
Gregory S. Smith (AR)
    The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No.
FMCSA-2012-0160. Their exemptions are effective as of August 27, 2016
and will expire on August 27, 2018.
    As of August 29, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 2 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (77 FR
41879; 77 FR 52391; 79 FR 41735):

Ricky W. Goins (TN)
Clayton Schroeder (MN)
    The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No.
FMCSA-2012-0161. Their exemptions are effective as of August 29, 2016
and will expire on August 29, 2018.

Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5,
who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under 49
CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must 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) each driver must
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the
certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The
exemption will be rescinded 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(e) and 31315.

IV. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 100 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers 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 two years unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: December 2, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-29833 Filed 12-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17917-17919]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06704]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 10

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0009]

Medical Waivers for Merchant Mariner Credential Applicants With a
History of Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy change and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is seeking public comment regarding criteria
for granting medical waivers to merchant mariners with a history of
seizure disorders. Coast Guard regulations provide that convulsive
disorders (also known as seizure disorders) are conditions that may
lead to disqualification for a merchant mariner credential (MMC).
Because a significant number of merchant mariner applicants have
suffered from seizure disorders, it is important for the Coast Guard to
develop and publish clear guidance regarding how such MMC applicants
are evaluated. Prior to issuing a policy change on when waivers should
be granted for seizure disorders, the Coast Guard will accept comments
from the public on whether the proposed criteria adequately address
safety concerns.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before April 24,
2013 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0009 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or email Lieutenant Ashley Holm, Mariner Credentialing
Program Policy Division (CG-CVC-4), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-
372-1128, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
material in the docket, call Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation

    You may submit comments and related material regarding this
proposed policy change. All comments received will be posted, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal
information you have provided.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this notice (USCG-2013-0009) and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
use ``USCG-2013-0009'' as your search term. Locate this notice in the
results and click the corresponding ``Comment Now'' box to submit your
comment. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.
    Viewing the comments: To view comments, as well as documents
mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and use ``USCG-2013-0009'' as your search term.
Use the filters on the left side of the page to highlight ``Public
Submissions'' or other document types. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting 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. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

    Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR 10.215 contain the medical
standards that merchant mariner applicants must meet prior to being
issued an MMC. In cases where the MMC applicant does not meet the
medical standards in 46 CFR 10.215, the Coast Guard may issue a waiver
when extenuating circumstances exist that warrant special consideration
(46 CFR 10.215(g)).
    On September 15, 2008, the Coast Guard issued Navigation and Vessel
Inspection Circular (NVIC) 04-08, ``Medical and Physical Evaluation
Guidelines for Merchant Mariner

Credentials.'' \1\ NVIC 04-08 provides that MMC applicants with a
history of seizure disorders should contact the National Maritime
Center (NMC) for guidance. Since the issuance of NVIC 04-08, a number
of MMC applicants have sought and received waivers for seizure
disorders in accordance with 46 CFR 10.215(g). However, because NVIC
04-08 does not identify waiver criteria associated with seizure
disorders, it has been difficult for Coast Guard personnel to
consistently evaluate MMC applicants with a history of seizures and
assess whether an individual applicant's medical condition warrants
granting a medical waiver under 46 CFR 10.215(g). Accordingly, the
Coast Guard is considering whether to change its policy regarding
waivers for seizure disorders, and under what criteria an MMC applicant
may be eligible for waiver consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NVIC 04-08 is available for viewing on the Coast Guard's Web
site at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/2000s.asp#2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard intends to consider public input as well as the
recommendations of the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee
(MMMAC), established under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 7115, prior to
establishing a final policy regarding which circumstances warrant
granting waivers for seizure disorders. Due to the complexity of the
medical and policy issues involved, the Coast Guard intends to
thoroughly analyze the issues prior to issuing the final policy.
    Because there is no medical literature that specifically addresses
the safety implications that seizure disorders in mariners might have
on both mariners and the public, the Coast Guard reviewed the
guidelines and recommendations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) Medical Review Board (January 28, 2008) and
FMCSA's Medical Expert Panel (MEP) (October 15, 2007) with regard to
commercial motor vehicle drivers with seizure disorders. Although the
FMCSA provides guidelines and medical regulations specific to drivers
of commercial motor vehicles, the FMCSA's mission of promoting public
safety by evaluating the medical fitness of drivers is similar to the
Coast Guard's mission of promoting public and maritime safety by
evaluating the medical fitness of merchant mariners. While the FMCSA
standards are not binding on the Coast Guard, they provide a sound
basis for the Coast Guard to use in formulating policy with respect to
evaluating merchant mariner applicants with seizure disorders and
assessing whether an MMC applicant's condition warrants granting a
medical waiver. We used the FMCSA standards as a starting point in
formulating our proposed policy detailed below.
    In October 2007, the MEP conducted a review of the medical
literature and revised its recommendations for medical certification of
commercial motor vehicle drivers with seizure disorders. The MEP
presented the following recommendations and findings to the FMCSA
Medical Review Board on January 28, 2008: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Seizure Disorders and CMV Driver Safety: Recommendations of
the MEP, October 15, 2007; available for viewing at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/TOPICS/mep/report/Seizure-Disorders-MEP-Recommendations-v2-prot.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) On the basis of the medical literature review, the MEP
concluded that the longer an individual remains seizure-free, the less
likely the individual is to have a recurrent seizure. Specifically, the
MEP found that individuals who have been seizure-free for at least 8
years have less than a 2 percent risk of seizure recurrence per year,
while those who have been seizure-free for 10 years have less than a 1
percent chance of seizure recurrence per year.
    (2) The MEP asserted that a seizure recurrence risk of less than
two percent was sufficiently low so as to permit an individual to be
certified to drive a commercial motor vehicle. The MEP recommended that
an individual with a history of epilepsy (a type of seizure disorder)
may be granted conditional certification to drive, provided that the
individual meets certain criteria. Although the MEP recommended an 8-
year seizure-free period, the FMCSA Medical Review Board opted to
retain stricter guidelines, recommending a minimum 10-year seizure-free
period, to reduce the risk of seizure recurrence to less than 1
percent.

Proposed Policy

    The Coast Guard is considering granting waivers to MMC applicants
with seizure disorders under the conditions delineated below. The Coast
Guard has been using an interim policy of an eight-year seizure-free
period for determining whether or not a waiver is warranted. The Coast
Guard recognizes that in some situations, a shorter period may be
justified. The Coast Guard requests public comment on whether the
criteria listed below are appropriate and sufficient for determining
whether an MMC applicant should be eligible for consideration for a
medical waiver under 46 CFR 10.215(g).

Unprovoked Seizures

    Unprovoked seizures are those seizures not precipitated by an
identifiable trigger. Mariners with a history of unprovoked seizure(s)
may be considered for a waiver.
    (1) Mariners with a history of epilepsy or seizure disorder may be
considered for a waiver if the mariner has been seizure-free for a
minimum of eight years (on or off anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs)); and
    (a) If AEDs have been stopped, the mariner must have been seizure-
free for a minimum of eight years since cessation of medication; or
    (b) If still using AEDs, the mariner must have been on a stable
medication regimen \3\ for a minimum of two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As used in this document, a stable medication regimen is
considered to be a dosage within the therapeutic range that is
consistent given changes in the mariner's weight or other factors
such as drug interactions. Significant dosage reductions or tapering
of the medication dosage would not be considered stable.
Additionally, changes in the type or classification of anti-
epileptic medication utilized would not be considered stable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Mariners with a single unprovoked seizure may be considered for
a waiver if the mariner has been seizure-free for a minimum of four
years (on or off AEDs); and
    (a) If all AEDs have been stopped, the mariner must have been
seizure-free for a minimum of four years since cessation of medication;
or
    (b) If still using AEDs, the mariner must have been on a stable
medication regimen for a minimum of two years.

Provoked Seizures

    Provoked seizures are those seizures precipitated by an
identifiable trigger. Mariners with a history of provoked seizure(s)
may be considered for a waiver. Mariners in this group can be divided
into those with low risk of recurrence and those with a higher risk of
recurrence (e.g., with a structural brain lesion).
    (1) If a mariner is determined to be low-risk for seizure
recurrence, does not require AEDs, and the precipitating factor is
unlikely to recur, a waiver may be considered when the mariner has been
seizure-free and off AEDs for a minimum of one year.
    (2) Generally, mariners with one of the following precipitating
factors will be considered low-risk for recurrence:
    (a) Lidocaine-induced seizure during a dental appointment;
    (b) Concussive seizure, loss of consciousness <=30 minutes with no
penetrating injury;
    (c) Seizure due to syncope not likely to recur;
    (d) Seizure from an acute metabolic derangement not likely to
recur;

    (e) Severe dehydration;
    (f) Hyperthermia; or
    (g) Drug reaction or withdrawal.
    (2) If a mariner is determined to be at higher risk for seizure
recurrence, a waiver may be considered if the mariner has been seizure-
free for a minimum of eight years (on or off AEDs); and
    (a) If all AEDs have been stopped, the mariner must have been
seizure-free for a minimum of eight years since cessation of
medication; or
    (b) If still using AEDs, the mariner must have been on a stable
medication regimen for a minimum of two years.
    (3) Generally, mariners with a history of provoked seizures caused
by a structural brain lesion (e.g., tumor, trauma, or infection)
characterized by one of the following precipitating factors will be
considered at higher risk for recurrence:
    (a) Head injury with loss of consciousness or amnesia >=30 minutes
or penetrating head injury;
    (b) Intracerebral hemorrhage of any etiology, including stroke and
trauma;
    (c) Brain infection, such as encephalitis, meningitis, abscess, or
cysticercosis;
    (d) Stroke;
    (e) Intracranial hemorrhage;
    (f) Post-operative brain surgery with significant brain hemorrhage;
or
    (g) Brain tumor.
    (4) Under exceptional circumstances in which a mariner has had
provoked seizures with structural brain lesions, individuals may be
considered for a waiver once they have been seizure-free for a minimum
of four years, provided that objective evidence supports extremely low
risk of seizure recurrence.

Additional Specific Questions

    The Coast Guard also specifically requests public comment on the
following questions:
    (1) Is there evidence that the chronic use of AEDs for the
treatment of epilepsy impairs judgment or reaction time?
    (2) Is there evidence that individuals who have been seizure-free
and off AEDs for a period of time have a lower likelihood of seizure
recurrence than individuals who have been apparently seizure-free and
on stable AED dosing?
    (3) What is the risk of seizure recurrence as a function of time
since last seizure among individuals on AEDs who are apparently
seizure-free?
    (4) What is the likelihood of seizure recurrence as a function of
time in individuals who are seizure-free following removal of a benign
brain tumor?
    (5) Are there instances in which the Coast Guard should issue
credentials to mariners with seizure disorders, provided that the
credentials contain operational limitations that would allow such
mariners a limited role in industry without causing an undue safety
risk?
    (6) Should mariners who are granted a waiver be restricted from
solo-watchkeeping in ports, harbors, and other waters subject to
congested vessel traffic or other hazardous circumstances?
    (7) Are there individuals with seizure disorders due to a
structural brain lesion that are at low-risk for seizure recurrence?
    In addition to submitting public comments in response to this
notice, the public may also wish to participate in the MMMAC public
meetings. MMMAC meetings are advertised separately in the Federal
Register and on the NMC's Web site at http://www.uscg.mil/nmc.

Authority

    This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46
U.S.C. 7101 et seq., 46 CFR 10.215, and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0710.1.

    Dated: March 14, 2013.
P.F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-06704 Filed 3-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P