+(,121/,1(

Citation: 73 Fed. Reg. 63026 2008 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Mon Mar 5 15:07:55 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10

CFR), Section 50.92, this means that

operation of the facility in accordance

with the proposed amendment would

not (1) Involve a significant increase in.

the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated; or (2)

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated; or (3)

involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a

significant inctease in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

Overall protection system performance will

remain within the bounds of the previously

performed accident analyses since there are no design changes. All design, material, and

construction standards that were applicable

prior to this amendment request will be

maintained. There will be no changes to the

design and operating temperature and

pressure limits placed on the reactor coolant

system.

The proposed changes will not adversely

affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and

configuration of the facility or the manner in

which the plant is operated and maintained.

The proposed changes will not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and

components (SSCs) from performing their

intended functions to mitigate the

consequences of an initiating event within

the assumed acceptance limits.

The proposed changes do not physically

alter safety-related systems nor affect the way

in which safety-related systems perform their

functions.

All accident analysis acceptance criteria

will continue to be met with the proposed

changes. The proposed changes will not

affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in

evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The

proposed changes will not alter any

assumptions or change any mitigation actions

in the radiological consequence evaluations

in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report for

the plant]. The applicable radiological dose

acceptance criteria will continue to be met. . Therefore, the proposed changes do not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. [Do] the proposed changels] create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

There are no proposed design changes nor are there any changes in the method by

which any safety-related plant SSC performs

its safety function. The proposed changes

will not affect the normal method of plant

operation or change any operating

parameters. No equipment performance

requirements will be affected. The proposed

changes will not alter any assumptions made

in the safety analyses.

No new accident scenarios, transient

precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting

single failures will be introduced as a result

of this amendment. There will be no adverse

effect or challenges imposed on any safetyrelated system as a result of this amendment.

The proposed amendment will not-alter the

design or performance of the 7300 Process

Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation

System, or Solid State Protection System

used in the plant protection systems.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not

create the possibility of a new or different

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

There will be no effect on those plant

systems necessary to assure the

accomplishment of protection functions.

There will be no impact on the overpower

limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio

(DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor

(FQ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor

(FAH), loss of coolant accident peak cladding

temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local power

density, or any other margin of safety. The

applicable radiological dose consequence

acceptance criteria will continue to be met.

The proposed changes do not eliminate any

surveillances or alter the frequency of

surveillances required by the Technical

Specifications. None of the acceptance -

criteria for any accident analysis will be

changed.

The proposed changes will have no impact

on the radiological consequences of a design

basis accident.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee's analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public'

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of 60 days after the date of

publication of this notice. The

Commission may issue the license

amendment before expiration of the 60-

day period provided that its final

determination is that the amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration. In addition, the

Commission may issue the amendment

prior to the expiration of the 30-day

comment period should circumstances

change during the 30-day comment

period such that failure to act in a

timely way would result, for example,

in derating or shutdown of the facility.

Should the Commission take action

prior to the expiration of either the

comment period or the notice period, it

will publish in the Federal Register a

notice of issuance. Should the

Commission make a final No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

any hearing will take place after

issuance. The Commission expects that

the need to take this action will occur

very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,

Directives and Editing Branch, Division

of Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-

0001, and should cite the publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. Written comments may

also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

Documents may be examined, and/or

copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public

Document Room (PDR), located at One

White Flint North, Public File Area 01

F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland.

The filing'of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

Within 60 days after the date of

publication of this notice, the person(s)

may file a request for a hearing with

respect to issuance of the amendment to

the subject facility operating license and

any person(s) whose interest maybe

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

via electronic submission through the

NRC E-filing system for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene. Requests

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene shall be filed in accordance

with the Commission's "Rules of

Practice for Domestic Licensing

Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.

Interested person(s) should consult a

current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is

available at the Commission's PDR,

located at One White Flint North, Public

File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.

Publicly available records will be

accessible from the Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic

Reading Room on the Internet at the

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rmldoc-collectionslcfr/. If a

request for a hearing or petition for

63026
Federal RegiSter/Vol. 73, No. 205 /Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

leave to intervene is filed by the above

date, the Commission or a presiding

officer designated by the Commission or

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel, will rule on the request and/or

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief

Administrative Judge of the Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of a hearing or an appropriate

order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following general requirements: (1) The

name, address and telephone number of

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the

nature of the requestor's/petitioner's

right under the Act to be made a party

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and

extent of the requestor's/petitioner's

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (4) the possible

effect of any decision or order which

may be entered in the proceeding on the

requestor's/petitioner's interest. The

petition must also identify the specific

contentions which the petitioner/

requestor seeks to have litigated at the

proceeding.

Each contention must consist of a

specific statement of the issue of law or

fact to be raised or controverted. In

addition, the petitioner/requestor shall

provide a brief explanation of the bases

for the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

.hearing. The petitioner/requestor must

also provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. The

petition must include sufficient

information to show that a genuine

dispute exists with the applicant on a

material issue of law or fact.

Contentions shall be limited to matters

within the scope of the amendment

under consideration. The contention

must be one which, if proven, would

entitle the petitioner to relief. A

petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy

these requirements with respect to at

least one contention will not be

permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held. If the final

determination is that the amendment

request involves no significant hazards

consideration, the Commission may

issue the amendment and make it

immediately effective, notwithstanding

the request for a hearing. Any hearing

held would take place after issuance of

the amendment. If the final

determination is that the amendment

request involves a significant hazards

consideration, any hearing held would

take place before the issuance of any

amendment.

A request for hearing or a petition for

leave to intervene must be filed in

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule,

which the NRC promulgated on August

28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing

process-requires participants to submit

and serve documents over the internet

or in some cases to mail copies on

electronic storage media. Participants

may not submit paper copies of their

filings unless they seek a waiver in

accordance with the procedures

described below.

To comply with the procedural

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the

petitioner/requestor must contact the

Office of the Secretary by e-mail at

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling

(301) 415-1677, to request (1) a digital

ID certificate, which allows the

participant (or its counsel or

representative) to digitally sign

documents and access the E-Submittal

server for any proceeding in which it is

participating; and/or (2) creation of an

electronic docket for the proceeding

(even in instances in which the

petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each

petitioner/requestor will need to

download the Workplace Forms

ViewerTM to access the Electronic

Information Exchange (EIE), a

component of the E-Filing system. The

Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and

is available at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.

Information about applying for a digital

ID certificate is available on NRC's

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/

site-helple-submittals/applycertificates.html.

Once a petitioner/requestor has

obtained a digital ID certificate, had a

docket created, and downloaded the EIE

viewer, it can then submit a request for

hearing or petition for leave to

intervene. Submissions should be in

Portable Document Format (PDF) in

accordance with NRC guidance

available on the NRC public Web site at

http://wwwnrc.gov/site-help/e-"

submittals.html. A filing is considered

complete at the time the filer submits its

documents through EIE. To be timely,

an electronic filing must be submitted to

the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m.

Eastern Time on the due date. Upon

receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing

system time-stamps the document and

sends the submitter an e-mail notice

confirming receipt of the document. The

EIE system also distributes an e-:mail

notice that provides access to the

document to the NRC Office. of the

General Counsel and any others who

have advised the Office of the Secretary

that they wish to participate in the

proceeding, so that the filer need not

serve the documents on those

participants separately. Therefore,

applicants and other participants (or

their counsel or representative) must

apply for and receive a digital ID

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they

can obtain access to the document via

the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically may

seek assistance through the "Contact

Us" link located on the NRC Web site

at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html or by calling the NRC

technical help line, which is available

between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.,

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

The help line number is (800) 397-4209

or locally, (301) 415-4737.

Participants who believe that they

have a good cause for not submitting

documents electronically must file a

motion, in accordance with 10 CFR

2.302(g), with their initial paper filing

requesting authorization to continue to

submit documents in paper format.

Such filings must be submitted by: (1)

First class mail addressed to the Office

of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited

delivery service to the Office of the

Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention:

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.

Participants filing a document in this

manner are responsible for serving the

document on all other participants.

Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or

expedited delivery service upon

63027
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

depositing the document with the

provider of the service.

Non-timely requests and/or petitions

and contentions will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

that the petition and/or request should

be granted and/or the contentions

should be admitted, based on a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely,

filings must be submitted no later than

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due

date.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory

proceedings will appear in NRC's

electronic hearing docket which is

available to the public at http://

ehd.nrc.gov/ehdproceeding/home.asp,

unless excluded pursuant to an order of

the Commission, an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer.

Participants are requested not to include

personal privacy information, such as

social security numbers, home

addresses, or home phone numbers in

their filings. With respect .to copyrighted

works, except for limited excerpts that

serve the purpose of the adjudicatory

filings and would constitute a Fair Use

application, Participants are requested

not to include copyrighted materials in

their submissions.

For further details with respect to this

license amendment application, see the

application for amendment dated

November 29, 2007 (ADAMS Accession

No. ML073460060), which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission's PDR, located at One

White Flint North, File Public Area 01

F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available

records will be accessible electronically

from the ADAMS Public Electronic

Reading Room on the Internet at the

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who

do not have access to ADAMS or who

encounter problems in accessing the

documents located in ADAMS, should

contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by

telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-

415-4737, or by e-mail to

pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of October 2008.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jack Donohew,

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing

Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. E8-25150 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the

ACRS Subcommittee on US-APWR;

Notice of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on the USAPWR will hold a meeting on

November 4-5, 2008, Room T-2B3,

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

The meeting will be open to public

attendance, with the exception of a

portion that may be closed to protect

information that is proprietary to

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., and

its contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

552b(c)(4).

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Tuesday, November 4, 2008-8 a.m.-

5 p.m.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008-8 a.m.-

12 noon

The Subcommittee will review four

topical reports, as noted below, related

to the U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water

Reactor (US-APWR) Design 1-

Certification Application. These topical

reports include: Safety Instrumentation

and Control (I&C) System Description

and Design Process, Human System

Interface System Description and

Human Factors Engineering Process,

Safety System Digital Platform

(MELTAC), and Defense-in-Depth and

Diversity. The Subcommittee will hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of the NRC staff,

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., and

other interested persons regarding this

matter. The Subcommittee will gather

information, analyze relevant issues and

facts, and formulate proposed positions

and actions, as appropriate, for

deliberation by the Full Committee.

Members of the public desiring to

provide oral statements and/or written

comments should notify the Designated

Federal Official, Mr. Neil Coleman,

(Telephone: 301-415-7656) five days

prior to the meeting, if possible, so that

appropriate arrangements can be made.

Electronic recordings will be permitted.

Detailed procedures for the conduct of

and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register

on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58268-

58269).

Further information regarding this

meeting can be obtained by contacting

the Designated Federal Official between

8 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons

planning to attend this meeting are

urged to contact the above named

individual at least two working days

prior to the meeting to be advised of any

potential changes to the agenda.

Dated: October 15, 2008.

Antonio Dias,

Chief, Reactor Safety Branch B, Advisory

Committee on Reactor Safeguards.

[FR Doc. E8-25145 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee

Meeting on Planning and Procedures;

Notice of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning

and Procedures will hold a meeting on

November 5, 2008, Room T-2B1, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance, with the exception of

a portion that may be closed pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss

organizational and personnel matters

that relate solely to the internal

personnel rules and practices of the

ACRS, and information the release of

which would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of personal

privacy.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 12 p.m.

Until 1 p.m.

The Subcommittee will discuss

proposed ACRS activities and related

matters. The Subcommittee will gather

information, analyze relevant issues and

facts, and formulate proposed positions

and actions, as appropriate, for

deliberation by the full Committee.

Members of the public desiring to

provide oral statements and/or written

comments should notify the Designated

Federal Officer, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy

(telephone: 301-415-7364) between

7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) five days prior

to the meeting, if possible, so that

appropriate arrangements can be made.

Electronic recordings will be permitted

only during those portions of the

meeting that are open to the public.

Detailed procedures for the conduct of

and participation in ACRS meetings

were published in the Federal Register

on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58268-

58269).

Further information regarding this

meeting can be obtained by contacting

the Designated Federal Officer between

7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). Persons

planning to attend this meeting are

urged to contact the above named

individual at least two working days -

1 63028
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

prior to the meeting to be advised of any

potential changes in the agenda.

Dated: October 15, 2008.

Cayetano Santos,

Branch Chief, ACRS.

[FR Doc. E8-25147 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 7590-01-P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the

Subcommittee on Plant License

Renewal; Notice of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant

License Renewal will hold a meeting on

November 5, 2008, Room T-2B3, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Wednesday, November 5, 2008-1:30

p.m. until 5 p.m.

The Subcommittee will discuss the

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP),

Unit 1 and 2 license renewal application

and the associated Safely Evaluation

Report (SER). The Subcommittee wilt

hear presentations by and hold

discussions with representatives of the

NRC staff, VEGP, Southern Nuclear

Company, and other interested persons

regarding this matter. The

Subcommittee will gather information,

analyze relevant issues and facts, and

formulate proposed positions and

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation

by the Full Committee.

Members of the public desiring to

provide oral statements and/or written

comments should notify the Designated

Federal Official, Mr. Christopher Brown

(telephone 301-415-7111) five days

prior to the meeting, if possible, so that

appropriate arrangements can be made.

Electronic recordings will be permitted.

Detailed procedures for the conduct of

and participation in ACRS meetings

were published in the Federal Register

on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58268-

58269).

Further information regarding this

meeting can be obtained by contacting

the Designated Federal Official between

6:45 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. (ET). Persons

planning to attend this meeting are

urged to contact the above named

individual at least two working days

prior to the meeting to be advised of any

potential changes to the agenda.

Dated: October 16, 2008.

Cayetano Santos,

Branch Chief, ACRS.

[FR Doc. E8-25149 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 7590-01-P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 63-001; CLI-08-25]

In the Matter of U.S. Department of

Energy (High Level Waste Repository);

Notice of Hearing and Opportunity To

Petition for Leave To Intervene on an

Application for Authority To Construct

a Geologic Repository at a Geologic

Repository Operations Area at Yucca

Mountain

COMMISSIONERS: Dale E. Klein,

Chairman; Gregory B. Jaczko, Peter B.

Lyons, Kristinie L. Svinicki.

I. Notice of Hearing

By letter dated June 3, 2008, the

Department of Energy (DOE) submitted

an application seeking authorization to

construct a geologic repository at a

geologic repository operations area at

Yucca Mountain in Nye County,

Nevada. The NRC published a notice of

receipt and availability of this

application in the Federal Register (73

FR 34348, corrected in 73 FR 40883

(June 17, 2008)). Notice is hereby given

that a hearing on the application will be

held at a time and place to be set in the

future by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) or an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(Board).

The hearing will consider the

application for construction

authorization filed by DOE pursuant to

Section 114 of the Nuclear Waste Policy

Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10134,

and pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 2 and 63.

The NRC Staff accepted the DOE

application for docketing on September

8, 2008 (73 FR 53284 (September 15,

2008)), and the docket number

established for this application is 63-

001.

The NRC Staff determined that it is

practicable'to adopt, with further

supplementation, the Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) and

supplements prepared by DOE. The

Staff concluded that neither the 2002

Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS) nor the 2008 Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement

(Repository Supplemental EIS)

adequately address all the impacts on

groundwater, or from surface discharges

of groundwater, from the proposed

action. The Staff therefore found that

additional supplementation is needed to

ensure that the 2002 FEIS and 2008

Repository Supplemental EIS are

adequate. The basis for the Staff's

position is presented in the "U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff s

Adoption Determination Report for the

U.S. Department of Energy's

Environmental Impact Statements for

the Proposed Geologic Repository at

Yucca Mountain," which is available in

the Agencywide Documents Access and

Management System (ADAMS) online

document system at http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm/adams/web-based.html, at

accession number ML082420342.

The NRC Staff will complete a

detailed technical review of the DOE

application, and will document its

findings in a safety evaluation report. If

the Commission finds that the DOE

application meets the applicable

standards of the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, as amended (AEA), the NWPA,

and the-Commission's regulations, then

the Commission will issue a

construction authorization, in the form

and containing such conditions and

limitations, if any, as the Commission

finds appropriate and necessary.

II. Opportunity To Petition for Leave To

Intervene

A hearing on DOE's construction

authorization application will be held in

the public interest pursuant to 10 CFR

2.101(e)(8). The hearing will be

governed by the rules of procedure in 10

CFR Part 2, Subpart C, "Rules of General

Applicability: Hearing Requests,

Petitions to Intervene, Availability of

Documents, Selection of Specific

Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer

Powers, and General Hearing

Management for NRC Adjudicatory

Hearings"; Subpart J, "Procedures

Applicable to Proceedings for the

Issuance of Licenses for the Receipt of

High-Level Radioactive Waste at a

Geologic Repository"; and Subpart G,

"Rules for Formal Adjudications." The

matters of fact and law to be considered

are whether the application satisfies the

applicable safety, security, and

technical standards of the AEA and

NWPA and the NRC's standards in 10

CFR Part 63 for a construction

authorization for a high-level waste

geologic repository, and also whether

the applicable requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) and NRC's NEPA regulations, 10

CFR Part 51, have been met.

Any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

desires to participate as a party must file

a written petition for leave to intervene

in accordance with the requirements in

10 CFR 2.309, including contentions

-that satisfy the admissibility standards

63029
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices

in § 2.309. Petitioners seeking to

intervene as parties must also comply

with the procedural case management

requirements set forth in the Advisory

Pre-License Application Presiding

Officer (PAPO) Board's Memorandum

and Order, LBP-08-10 (Case

Management Order Concerning

Petitions to Intervene, Contentions,

Responses, Replies, Standing

Arguments, and Referencing or

Attaching Supporting Materials), dated

June 20, 2008, available at ADAMS

accession number ML081720154, and

the Advisory PAPO Board's Order

(Regarding Contention Formatting and

Tables of Contents), dated September

29, 2008, available at ADAMS accession

number ML082730764. In addition, as

outlined further below, the regulations

in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J require

electronic production, filing and service

of all documents in this proceeding.

In ruling on a petition to intervene in

this proceeding, the presiding officer

shall consider any failure of the

petitioner to participate as a potential

party in the pre-license application

phase under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J,

in addition to the factors on standing to

intervene outlined in 10 CFR 2.309(d).

A petition for leave to intervene must

be filed no later than 60 days after the

date of publication of this notice in the

,Federal Register. A non-timely petition

or contention will not be entertained

unless the Commission, an Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board, or a

presiding officer designated to rule on

the petition determines that the late

petition or contention meets the latefiled requirements of 10 CFR

2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).

Certain hearing schedule milestones

in. Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 2, as well

as the 30-day hearing petition and

contention-filing deadlines set forth in

10 CFR 2.309(b)(2) and 51.109(a)(2) are

superseded by this notice. A revised

hearing schedule with new milestones

for actions through the First Prehearing

Conference Order appears in Section VI

of this notice.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and will have the opportunity

to participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing.

The regulations in 10 CFR Part 2,

Subpart J require electronic document

production (via the Licensing Support

Network) and electronic filing and

service of adjudicatory documents via

the Electronic Information Exchange

(EIE). This requirement applies to all

documents filed in the proceeding,.

including a petition for leave to

intervene, and any motion or other

document filed in the proceeding prior

to the submission of a petition to

intervene. Pursuant to 10 CFR

2.1012(b)(1), a petitioner, including a

potential party given access to the

Licensing Support Network, may not be

granted party status under 10 CFR

2.309, or status as an interested

governmental participant under 10 CFR

2.315, if the petitioner cannot

demonstrate substantial and timely

compliance with the requirements in 10

CFR 2.1003 at the time of the request for

participation in the high-level waste

proceeding.' In addition, a petitioner

will not be found to be in substantial

and timely compliance unless the

petitioner complies with all orders of

the Pre-License Application Presiding

Officer (PAPO) regarding electronic

availability of documents. PAPO orders

are available on the NRC's high-level

waste electronic hearing docket at:

http://hlwehd.nrc.gov/PublicHLWEHD/home.asp,-under HLW-EHD,

folder titled PAPO HLW, subfolder

titled OrdersPAPO.

A petition for leave to intervene, and

all filings in the adjudicatory

proceeding, must be filed electronically

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.1013(c)(1).

At least.30 days prior to the filing

deadline for a petition to intervene, the

petitioner must contact the Office of the

Secretary (SECY) by e-mail at:

HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV or by

calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a

digital ID certificate, which allows the

participant (or its counsel or

representative) to digitally sign

documents and access the E-Submittal

server for any proceeding in which it is

participating; and/or (2) creation of an

electronic docket for the proceeding

(even in instances in which the

petitioner, or its counsel or*

representative, already holds an NRCissued digital certificate). Each

petitioner will need to download the

Workplace Forms ViewerTm to access

the EIE, a component of the E-Filing

system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM

is free and is available at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/

install-viewer.html. Information about

applying for a digital ID certificate is

available on the NRC's public Web site

at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals/apply-certificates.html.

IA person denied party or interested

governmental participant status under 10 CFR

2.1012(b)(1) may request such status upon a showing of subsequent compliance with the

requirements of 10 CFR 2.1003. The subsequent

admission of such a party or interested

governmental participant shall be conditioned on accepting the status of the proceeding at the time

of admission.

Once a petitioner has obtained a

digital ID certificate, has had a docket

created, and has downloaded the EIE

viewer, the petitioner can then submit a

petition for leave to intervene.

Submissions should be in Portable

Document Format (PDF) in accordance

with NRC guidance available on the

NRC public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Guidance for Electronic

Submissions to the NRC is a

consolidated guidance document that

sets forth the technical standards for

electronic transmission and formatting

electronic documents, and provides

instructions on how to obtain and use

the agency-provided digital ID

certificate. A person who holds a

current digital ID certificate for use in

the proceedings before the PAPO or the

Advisory PAPO need not obtain a new

certificate. That certificate will remain

valid for this proceeding.

Section 2.1013(c) defines service as

completed when the filer/sender

receives electronic acknowledgement

("delivery receipt") that the electronic

submission has been placed in the

recipient's electronic mailbox. To be

timely, an electronic filing must be

submitted to the EIE system no later

than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due

date.

U.7on receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document

and sends the submitter an e-mail notice

confirming receipt of the document. The

EIE system also distributes an e-mail

notice that provides access to the

document to the NRC Office of General

Counsel and any others who have

advised the Office of the Secretary that

they wish to participate in the

proceeding, so that the filer need not

serve the documents on those

participants separately. Therefore, the

applicant and any other participant (or

their counsel or representative) must

apply for and receive a digital ID

certificate before a petition to intervene

is filed so that they can obtain access to

the document via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically may

seek assistance through the "Contact

Us" link located under the heading

"Additional Information" on theNRC

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html or by calling the

NRC technical help line, which is

available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15

p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through

Friday. The help line number is (800)

397-4209 or locally (301) 415-4737.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory

proceedings will appear in the NRC's

high-level waste electronic hearing

docket at http://hlwehd.nrc.govl

Public_HLW-EHD/home.asp , unless

63030
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

excluded pursuant to an order of the

Commission, an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, or a presiding officer.

Paiticipants are requested not to include

personal privacy infonation, such as

social security numbers, home

addresses, or home phone numbers in

the filing. With respect to copyrighted

-works, except for limited excerpts that

serve the purpose of the adjudicatory

filing and would constitute a Fair Use

application, participants are requested

not to include copyrighted materials in

their submission.

Documents may be examined, and/or

copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public

Document Room (PDR), located at One

White-Flint North, Public File Area 01

F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland, and will be

accessible electronically through the

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading

Room link at the NRC Web site http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.h tml.

The ADAMS accession number for the

ADAMS package containing the DOE

application is ML081560400. The

ADAMS accession number for the

ADAMS package containing DOE's

Final Environmental Impact Statement

is ML032690321, and the accession

number for the ADAMS package

containing DOE's Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement is

ML081750191. The ADAMS accession

number for the ADAMS package

containing DOE's Final Rail Corridor

Supplemental EIS and Rail Alignment

EIS is ML082460227. The application is

also available at http://www.nrc.gov/

waste/hlw-disposal/yucca-lic-app.html.

Persons who do not have access to

ADAMS or who encounter problems in

accessing documents located in ADAMS

should contact the NRC Public

Document Room (PDR) Reference staff

by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or

301-415-4737, or by e-mail to

pdrnrc.gov.

Hm. Additional Matters Pertaining to the

Hearing and Intervention Requests

A. Standing as of Right

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309(d)(2)(iii),

the Commission shall permit

intervention by the State and local

governmental body (county,

municipality or other subdivision) in

which the geologic repository

operations area is located, and by any

affected Federally-recognized Indian

Tribe, as defined in 10 CFR Part 63, if

the contention requirements in 10 CFR

2.309(f) are satisfied With respect to at

least one contention. Section 2.309(d)(2)

specifies that such State, affected

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, and

local governmental body heed not

address the standing requirements in 10

CFR 2.309(d).

In LBP-08-10, the Advisory PAPO

Board requested that the Commission

clarify whether an "affected unit of local

government" (AULG), as defined in

section 2 of the NWPA, as amended (42

U.S.C. 10101), also need not address the

standing requirements of section

2.309(d). Any AULG seeking party

status shall be considered a party to this

proceeding, provided that it files at least

one admissible contention in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.309. An

AULG need not address the standing

requirements -under that section.

B. Environmental Contentions

In addition to meeting NRC's regular

contention admissibility requirements

in 10 CFR 2.309(f), environmental

contentions addressing any DOE

environmental impact statement or

supplement must also conform to the

requirements and address the applicable

factors outlined in 10 CFR 51.109

governing NRC's adoption of DOE's

environmental impact statements. The

requirements of section 51.109 should

be applied consistent with Nuclear

Energy Institute, Inc. v. EPA, 373 F.3d

1251, 1313-14 (D.C. Cir. 2004), a court

decision discussing section 51.109, and

consistent with the Commission's denial

of the State of Nevada's petition to

amend section 51.109 (73 FR 5762;

January 31, 2008), and the Office of the

General Counsel's subsequent letter

clarifying the Commission's denial

(Letter from Bradley W. Jones, Assistant

General Counsel to Martin G. Malsch,

dated March 20, 2008, ADAMS

accession number ML080810175).

Under 10 CFR 51.109(c), the presiding

officer should treat as a cognizable "new

consideration" an attack on the Yucca

Mountain environmental impact

statements based on significant and

substantial information that, if true,

would render the statements

inadequate. Under 10 CFR 51.109(a)(2),

a presiding officer considering

environmental contentions should

apply NRC "reopening" procedures and

standards in 10 CFR 2.326 "to the extent

possible."

C. Hearing Procedures

The construction authorization

hearing will be conducted by one or

more presiding officers (licensing

boards) that will be designated by the

Chief Judge of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel. The Commission

anticipates and authorizes the

establishment of multiple licensing

boards throughout the proceeding.

Notice as to the membership of the

board(s) will be published at a later

date.

In 1991, the Commission suggested

that it would use the notice of hearing

for a high-level waste (HLW) proceeding

to announce detailed case management

procedures (56 FR 7787, 7793-94

(February 26, 1991)). In the intervening

years, however, the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel has engaged in

extensive case management planning for

this proceeding. The Commission

therefore believes that the presiding

officer(s) in this proceeding will be in

the best position to establish and

efficiently resolve case management

issues, some of which the Commissionauthorized Advisory PAPO Board

resolved in LBP-08-10.

D. Scope of the Hearing

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1027, in

any initial decision on the application

for construction authorization, the

presiding officer shall make findings of

fact and conclusions of law on, and

otherwise give consideration to, only

material issues put into controversy by

the parties and determined to be

litigable in the proceeding. The

Commission has determined that the

scope of the adjudicatory proceeding on

safety, security, or technical issues is

limited to litigable contested issues. See

State of Nevada; Denial of Petition for

Rulemaking, Docket No. PRM-2-14,

available at ADAMS accession number

ML082900618. The presiding officer has

no authority or duty to resolve

uncontested issues in those areas. See

10 CFR 2.1023(c)(2) and 10 CFR 2.1027.

Notwithstanding the provisions in

2.1023(c)(2) and 10 CFR 2.1027, the

presiding officer shall make the

environmental findings required by 10

CFR 51.109(e), even on uncontested,

issues, "to the extent it is not

practicable to adopt the environmental

impact statement prepared by the

Secretary of Energy."

E. Participation by a Non-Party

A person who is not a party may be

permitted to make a limited appearance

statement by making an oral or written

statement of his or her position on the

issues at any session of the hearing or

any pre-hearing conference within the

limits and conditions fixed by the

presiding officer, but may not otherwise

participate in the proceeding.

IV. Access to Non-public information

Those petitioners who seek access to

non-public information must follow the

access requirements contained in the

PAPO Board's Third Case Management

Order (August 30, 2007), available at

ADAMS accession number

63031
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October- 22, 2008 / Notices

ML072420327. This and other case

management orders issued by the PAPO

Board govern protection of various

categories of protected and privileged

information. The Board's case

management orders are available on the

high-level waste electronic hearing

docket, Docket No. PAPO-00, at http://

hlwehd.nrc.gov/Public_HLW-EHD/

home.asp, under HLW-EHD, folder

titled PAPO.HLW, subfolder titled

OrdersPAPO.

V. Motions

To avoid unnecessary disputes and

filings, a party who files a motion must

certify, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.323, that

he or she has made a reasonable effort

to consult with counsel for the applicant

and counsel for the NRC staff, as well

as other interested counsel or litigants,

in an effort to resolve the matter in

advance of filing the motion. Motions

must also meet all other section 2.323

requirements.

VI. Revised Hearing Schedule

Milestones

In CLI-08-18 (August 13, 2008),

available at ADAMS accession number

ML082261241, the Commission granted

the State of Nevada, as well as any other

petitioner, an additional thirty (30) days

in which to file a petition to intervene,

or a petition for status as an interested

government participant, in this

proceeding. In addition, the

Commission proposed further

modifications to the schedule codified

in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix D.

The Commission invited any party or

potential party participating in the

matters before the PAPO Board to

provide comments on certain additional

proposed extensions of time. The

Commission also sought the views of

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel on the reasonableness of current

and proposed time frames. The

Commission has considered the

comments received, and has determined

that the revised schedule below will

replace certain hearing milestones set

forth in Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 2.

The Commission hereby doubles the

time permitted to file answers and

replies, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1)

and (2), respectively, to fifty (50) and

fourteen (14) days, respectively. The

Commission also extends the period for

the First Prehearing Conference from

eight (81 to sixteen (16) days after the

deadline for filing replies, and extends

the period for issuance of the First

Prehearing Conference Order from thirty

(30) to sixty (60) days after the First

Prehearing Conference. The revised

Appendix D schedule, reflected in the

table below, replaces only the

milestones up to, and including, the

First Prehearing Conference Order. The

presiding officer retains authority to

grant extensions of time of no more than

fifteen days, and the Commission

retains authority to grant extensions of

longer than fifteen days, but in either

case the litigant seeking the extension

must follow the requirements of 10 CFR

2.1026.

PARTIALLY REVISED APPENDIX D

SCHEDULE

Day Action

0 ........ Federal Register Notice of Hearing.

60 ...... Petition to intervene/request for

hearing, w/contentions.

110 .... Answers to intervention and interested government participant Petitions.

124 .... Petitioner's response to answers.

140 .... First Prehearing Conference.

200 .... First Prehearing Conference Order

identifying participants in proceeding, admitted contentions,

and setting discovery and other

schedules.

The regulatory requirements

governing the balance of the Appendix

D schedule remain unchanged.

VII. September 9, 2008, Petition

On September 9, 2008, the State of

Nevada submitted to the Commission a "petition" directed to the content of this

hearing notice.2 In this petition, Nevada

argues that the Commission cannot

issue a notice of hearing unless it first

resolves "at least three important legal

and procedural issues." 3

Nevada's first issue, now partially

mooted, is the lack of final

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

standards and implementing NRC rules

for the post-10,000 year period. The

EPA has now established post-10,000

year standards, and the Staff is

developing implementing regulations. 4

2 Petition to Publish a Fair and Reasonable Notice

of Hearing on DOE's Yucca Mountain Application

(Sept. 9, 2008), available at ADAMS accession

number ML082550289 (September 9 Petition). The

procedural identity of Nevada's "petition" is not

obvious. The Commission addresses the issues

Nevada raises as part of this notice of hearing solely

as a matter of expedience since they touch on topics

the Commission already addresses independently.

Both DOE and the NRC Staff responded to the

September 9 Petition. See U.S. Department of

Energy Response to State of Nevada "Petition to

Publish a Fair and Reasonable Notice of Hearing on

DOE's Yucca Mountain Application" (Sept. 19,

2008); NRC Staffs Response to the State of

Nevada's Petition to Publish a Fair and Reasonable

Notice of Hearing on DOE's Yucca Mountain

Application (Sept. 19, 2008).

* September 9 Petition at 3. 4 Final Rule, Public Health and Environmental

Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca

Mountain, Nevada 73 FR 61.256 (October 15, 2008).

Nevada argued that potential parties

cannot draft contentions based upon

standards that have not been finalized.

As a possible remedy, Nevada proposed

that today's notice of hearing include a

delay-essentially a bifurcation of

contention-filing deadlines-with

respect to all issues related to the EPA

standards and the NRC's implementing

rules until some date to be determined

after the standards and rules are issued.

Nevada argued alternatively that this

delay could be avoided if the

Commission declined to be bound by its

Staff s decision to docket the

application.

The Commission recognizes Nevada's

concern but does not believe Nevada's

extraordinary remedies are necessary,

especially since the EPA has now issued

the relevant standards, and the NRC's

regulations are in preparation. Under

the NRC's ordinary practice, Nevada

and other hearing petitioners are free to

file contentions arguing that the

Commission may not authorize

construction in the absence- of

implementing NRC rules. And they are

also free to file contentions maintaining

that DOE's application does not meet

EPA's standards. Such contentions

would require no change in the

contention-filing schedule set out in

CLI-08-18. Nevada or other hearing

petitioners may amend their "EPA

standards'"-related contentions later,

after the NRC's implementing rules are

issued, if the new NRC rules establish

fresh grounds for contentions. Under the

unusual circumstances of this case,

where controlling agency rules have

been delayed, and to ensure that no one

is prejudiced, any contentions so

amended-on EPA standards-related

issues only-will be deemed timely for

admissibility purposes if filed within

sixty days after the Federal Register

publication of the NRC rules

implementing the new EPA standards. 5

The second issue Nevada raises in its

September 9 Petition concerns a petition

for rulemaking it filed regarding the

specification of issues for the mandatory

hearing portion of this proceeding. 6

5 NRC rules ordinarily call on licensing boards to

balance several factors in deciding whether to allow

late-filed (or amended) contentions. See 10 CFR

2.309(c)(i)-(viii). In the case of the yet-to-issue NRC

rules, however, the Commission is dispensing in

advance with all "late-filed" factors except the

"good cause" factor. It is obvious even now that

promptly-filed and well-pled contentions based on

new, previously unavailable NRC rules--rules that

will govern important aspects of NRC's safety

review-must be admitted for hearing. There

plainly would be "good cause" for filing such

contentions late, and no conceivable justification

for rejecting them at the threshold.

r Petition by the State of Nevada for Rulemaking

to Specify Issues for the Yucca Mountain

Mandatory Hearing (June 19, 2007).

63032
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

That petition has now been ruled on,

and the Commission's rulemaking

decision is reflected in the discussion of

the scope of the hearing addressed in

Section HI.D, above. 7

Finally, the third issue Nevada raises

in its September 9 Petition concerns the

-status of security clearances and access

to classified information in the Yucca

Mountain construction authorization

application. -Nevada argues that its

representatives have not been informed

of decisions on their security clearances

and on access to classified information, "notwithstanding timely applications,"

so no contentions based on classified

information can be prepared.8 To

remedy this, Nevada again asks for a

bifurcation of contention-filing

deadlines.

It-is the Commission's understanding

that, as of the end of July, one of

Nevada's security clearance applications

was complete and was being processed,

another application was incomplete,

and two applications had been

withdrawn. 9 From this, the Commission

concludes that the timeliness of

Nevada's security clearance applications

is factually ambiguous. Moreover, it is

not immediately clear that the perceived

problem could not be remedied by the

provision of redacted versions of

classified documents that could provide

a basis for the formulation of

contentions before the security

clearance application reviews are

completed. The Commission directs the

PAPO Board to resolve both of these

questions.

It is so ordered.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of October, 2008.

For the Commission.

Annette L. Vietti-Cook,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. E8-25293 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

I See State of Nevada; Deniil of Petition for

Rulemaking, Docket No. PRM-2-14, available at

ADAMS accession number ML082900618.

8 September 9 Petition at 6.

9 See Letter from Aby Mobseni, Deputy Director,

Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Division of

High-Level Waste Repository Safety, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards to Robert R.

Loux, Executive Director, Agency for Nuclear

Projects, Office of the Governor, State of Nevada

(July 31, 2008), available at ADAMS accession

number ML081910097.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the

ACRS Subcommittee on Economic

Simplified Boiling Water Reactor

(ESBWR); Corrected Notice of Meeting

(Corrected To Note New Meeting

Times)

The ACRS Subcommittee on the

ESBWR will hold a meeting on October

21-22, 2008, Room T-2B3, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting will be open to public

attendance, with the exception of a

portion that may be closed to protect

information that is proprietary to

General Electric-Hitachi (GEH) Nuclear

Energy and its contractors pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Tuesday, October 21, 2008-1 p.m.-5

p.m

Wednesday, October 22, 2008-8:30

a.m.-12 noon.

The Subcommittee will review

Chapter 14 of the Safety Evaluation

Report with Open Items associated with

the ESBWR Design Certification

Application. The Subcommittee will

hear presentations by and hold

discussions with representatives of the

NRC staff, GEH, and other interested

persons regarding this matter. The

Subcommittee will gather information,

analyze relevant issues and facts, and

formulate proposed positions and

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation

by the full Committee.

Members of the public desiring to

provide oral statements and/or written

comments should notify the Designated

Federal Official, Dr. Harold J.

Vandermolen, (Telephone: 301-415-

6236) five days prior to the ineeting, if

possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made. Electronic

recordings will be permitted. Detailed

procedures for the conduct of and

participation in ACRS meetings were

published in the Federal Register on

September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695).

Further information regarding this

meeting can be obtained by contacting

the Designated Federal Official between

8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET). Persons

planning to attend this meeting are

urged to contact the above named

individual at least two working days

prior to the meeting to be advised of any

potential changes to the agenda.

Dated: October 14, 2008.

Cayetano Santos,

Branch Chief.

[FR Doc. E8-25141 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 7590-01-P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70-7001, 70-7002]

Notice of Renewal of Certificates of

Compliance GDP-1 and GDP-2 for the

U.S. Enrichment Corporation, Paducah

and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion

Plants, Paducah, KY and Portsmouth,

OH

ACTION: Notice and issuance of a

Director's Decision renewing the

Certificates of Compliance for the

United States Enrichment Corporation

(USEC) allowiig continued operation of

the gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs), at

Paducah, KY, and Portsmouth, OH.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Raddatz, Enrichment and

Conversion Branch, Division of Fuel

Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555-0001.'

Telephone: (301) 492-3108; Fax: (301)

492-3363; or by e-mail:

Michael.Raddatz@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is hereby issuing a

director's decision authorizing the

renewal of the certificates of compliance

for the two GDPs located near Paducah,

KY, and Portsmouth, OH, for the USEC,

allowing continued operation of these

plants. The renewal of these certificates

for the GDPs covers a 5-year period.

USEC submitted individual renewal

requests for both the Paducah and

Portsmouth GDPs on April 10, 2008,

pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section

76.31.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 76.53, the NRC

consulted with and requested written

comments on the renewal application

from the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and the Department of

Energy (DOE). EPA responded in a letter

dated September 15, 2008,

(ML082840196) stating that it had

thoroughly reviewed the USEC

application to ensure that USEC had

provided an accurate environmental

compliance overview. The EPA found

that both the local and regional EPA

regulators had adequately inspected the

63033
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

facilities and took appropriate action

when identifying violations, and

supported the recertification of the

GDPs. In an e-mail dated September 23,

2008, (ML082840080) DOE reported that

its Portsmouth and Paducah Project

Office continued to discharge its

regulatory and oversight responsibilities

at the PGDP and PORTS. DOE

conducted its activities in a manner to

enhance and improve the environmental

health and safety conditions, and

achieve compliancewith all applicable

Federal and State laws and regulations.

In those instances where potential

violations of these laws .and regulations

were identified, actions were taken to

notify appropriate authorities, identify

the cause, and institute corrective

measures.

The NRC staff reviewed the certificate

renewal applications for the GDPs

located near Paducah, KY, and

Portsmouth, OH. USEC's applications

for certificate renewal, received April

10, 2008, did not propose any changes

to the current safety basis or ,

requirements. As required by 10 CFR

76.36, "Annual Renewals," USEC has

incorporated, into the renewal

application by reference, previous

applications, statements, and reports.

The documents that USEC is relying

upon as the basis for recertification

include the previously approved

Technical Safety Requirements, Safety

Analysis Report, Compliance Plan,

Quality Assurance Program, Emergency

Plan, Security and Safeguards Plans,

Waste Management Program, and

Decommissioning Funding Program, as

well as changes made pursuant to 10

CFR 76.68, "Plant Changes." The staff

reviews (as part of recertification) all 10

CFR 76.68 changes submitted during the

past 5 years to ensure that the

cumulative effect of the changes, when

taken as a whole, and in consideration

of the changes approved by the NRC

staff under 10 CFR 76.45, have not

degraded the safety basis for the GDPs.

Based on its review of the certificate

renewal applications, the NRC staff has

concluded that in combination with

existing certificate conditions, USEC

provides reasonable assurance of

adequate safety, safeguards, and

security, and compliance with NRC

requirements. The NRC staff prepared

compliance evaluation reports (CERs) to

provide details of the staff's safety

evaluations. These CERs (PortsmouthML082820425, PaducahML082820197) contain reference to the

review performed by headquarters staff,

in consultation with the regional

inspectors, of the 10 CFR 76.68 changes

made since issuance of the 2003

certificates.

Because approvals of the certificate

renewal applications are covered by a

categorical exclusion (10 CFR

51.22(c)(19)), no environmental impact

statement or environmental assessment

needs to be prepared for these -actions.

As a result of the staff reviews, the

NRC finds that USEC has met, and will

continue to meet, the 10 CFR 76

certification requirements. Accordingly,

the NRC will renew the certificates of

compliance for GDP-1 and GDP-2,

following submission of the Report to

Congress as required by Sec. 1701(b)(1)

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (AEA).

II. Opportunity To File a Petition

Under 10 CFR 76.62(c), USEC or any

person whose interest may be affected

may file a petition requesting the

Commission's review of this renewal

decision. A petition requesting the

Commission's review may not exceed 30

pages and must be filed within 30 days

after the publication of this notice in the

Federal Register. Within 15 days of

filing a petition requesting the

Commission's review, pursuant to 10

CFR 76.62(c), any other person whose

interest may be affected may file a

response, not to exceed 30 pages, to the

petition for review. Petitions requesting

the Commission's-review or responses

are to be filed and served in accordance

with 10 CFR 2.302(a) and (c), and the

other procedures referenced in 10 CFR

76.72(a).

Additionally, any petition must be

filed in accordance with the NRC EFiling rule, promulgated in 72 FR 49139

(Aug. 28, 2007). The E-Filing rule

requires participants to submit and

serve documents over the internet or in

some cases to mail copies on electronic

storage media. Participants may not

submit paper copies of their filings

unless they seek a waiver in accordance

with the procedures described below.

To comply with the procedural

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the

petitioner/requester must contact the

Office of the Secretary by e-mail at

HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV, or by

calling (301) 4'15-1677, to request (1) a

digital ID certificate, which allows the

participant (or its counsel or

representative) to digitally sign

documents and access the E-Submittal

server for any proceeding in which it is

participating; and/or (2) creation of an

electronic docket for the proceeding

(even in instances in which the

petitioner/requester (or its counsel or

representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each

petitioner/requester will need to

download the Workplace Forms

ViewerTM to access the Electronic

.Information Exchange (EIE), a

component of the E-Filing system. the

Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and

is available at http://www.nrc.gov/site

help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.

Information about applying for a digital

ID certificate is available on NRC's

public Web site at http://www.nrc.govsite helple-submittals/applycertificates.html.

Once a petitioner/requester has

obtained a digital ID certificate, had a

docket created, and downloaded the EIE

viewer, it can then submit a petition.

Submissions should be in Portable

Document Format (PDF) in accordance

with NRC guidance available on the

NRC public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered

complete at the time the filer submits its

documents through EIE. To be timely,

an electronic filing must be submitted to

the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m.

Eastern Time on the due date. Upon

receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing

system time-stamps the document and

sends the submitter an e-mail notice

confirming receipt of the document. The

EIE system also distributes an e-mail

notice that provides access to the

document to the NRC Office of the

General Counsel and any others who

have advised the Office of the Secretary

that they wish to participate in the

proceeding, so that the filer need not

serve the documents on those

participants separately. Therefore,

applicants and other participants (or

their counsel or representative) must

apply for and receive a digital ID

certificate before a petition is filed so

that they can obtain access to the

document via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically may

seek assistance through the "Contact

Us" link located on the NRC Web site

at http://www.nrc.gov/site-helplesubmittals.html or by calling the NRC

technical help line, which is available

between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.,

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

The help line number is (800) 397-4209

or locally, (301) 415-4737.

Participants who believe that they

have a good cause for not submitting

documents electronically must file a

motion, in accordance with 10 CFR

2.302(g), with their initial paper filing

requesting authorization to continue to

submit documents in paper format.

Such filings must be submitted by: (1)

First class mail addressed to the Office

of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited

63034
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices

delivery service to the Office of the

Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention:

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.

Participants filing a document in this

manner are responsible for serving the

document on all other participants.

Filing is considered complete by firstz

class mail as of the time of deposit in

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or

expedited delivery, service upon

depositing the document with the

provider of the service.

Non-timely petitions will not be

entertained absent a determination by

the Commission that the petition should

be granted. To be timely, filings must be

submitted no later than 11:59 p.m.

Eastern Time on the due date.

Participants are requested not to

include social security numbers or

copyrighted materials in their filings.

The formal requirements for documents

contained in 10 CFR 2.304(c)-(e) must

be met. If the NRC grants an electronic

document exemption in accordance

with 10 CFR 2.302(g)(3), then the

requirements for paper documents, set

forth in 10 CFR 2.304(b) must be met.

III. Further Information

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of

the NRC's "Rules of Practice," details

with respect to this action, including the

applications for renewal Portsmouth

and Paducah GDPs (ML081070220 and

ML081070229, respectively) are

available electronically for public

inspection and copying from the

Publicly Available Records (PARS)

component of NRC's Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible

from the NRC Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

These documents (except for classified

and proprietary portions which are

withheld in accordance with 10 CFR

2.390, "Availability of Public Records")

are also available for public inspection

at the Commission's Public Document

Room, at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this loth day of

October 2008.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michael F. Weber,

Director, Office of Nuclear Maferial Safety

and SafegUards.

[FR Doc. E8-25151 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 7590-01-P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

Extension:

Rule 12d2-1; OMB Control No. 3235-0081;

SEC File No. 270-98.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities

and Exchange Commission

("Commission") is soliciting comments

on the collections of information

summarized below. The Commission

plans to submit these existing

collections of information to the Office

of Management and Budget for

extension and approval.

9 Rule 12d2-1 (17 CFR 240.12d2-1)

Suspension of Trading.

On February 12, 1935, the

Commission adopted Rule 12d2-1,1

under the Securities Exchange Act of

1934 (15 U.S.C. 78b et seq.) ("Act"), to

establish the procedures by which a

national securities exchange may

suspend from trading a security that is

listed and registered on the exchange

under section 12(d) of the Act. 2 Under

Rule 12d2-1, an exchange is permitted

to suspend from trading a listed security

in accordance with its rules, and must

promptly notify the Commission of any

such suspension, along with the

effective date and the reasons for the

suspension.

Any such suspension may be

continued until such time as the

Commission may determine that the

suspension is designed to evade the

provisions of section 12(d) of the Act

and Rule 12d2-2 thereunder. 3 During

the continuance of such suspension

under Rule 12d2-1, the exchange is

required to notify the Commission

promptly of any change in the reasons

for the suspension. Upon the restoration

to trading of any security suspended

under Rule 12d2-1, the exchange must

notify the Commission promptly of the

effective date of such restoration..

The trading suspension notices serve

a number of purposes. First, they inform

the Commission that an exchange has

suspended from trading a listed security

or reintroduced trading in a previously

suspended security. They also provide

the Commission with information

I See Secuities Exchange Act Release No. 98

(February 12, 1935).

2 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 7011

(February 5, 1963), 28 FR 1506 (February 16, 1963). 3

Rule 12d2-2 prescribes the circumstances under

which a security may be delisted from an exchange

and withdrawn from registration under section

12(b) of the Act, and provides the procedures for

taking such action. '

necessary for it to determine that the

suspension has been accomplished in

accordance with the rules of the

exchange, and to verify that the

exchange has not evaded the

requirements of section 12(d) of the Act

and Rule 12d2-2 thereunder by

improperly employing a trading

suspension. Without Rule 12d2-1, the

Commission would be unable to fully

implement these statutory

responsibilities.

There are ten national securities

xchanges that are subject to Rule 12d2-

1. The burden of complying with Rule

12d2-1 is not evenly distributed among

the exchanges, however, since there are

many more securities listed on the New

York Stock Exchange, Inc., the

NASDAQ Stock Market, and the

American Stock Exchange LLC than on

the other exchanges. 4 However, for

purposes of this filing, the Commission

staff has assumed that the number of

responses is evenly divided among the

exchanges. There are approximately

1,500 responses under Rule 12d2-1 for

the purpose of suspension of trading

from the national securities exchanges

each year, the resultant aggregate annual

reporting hour burden would be,

assuming on average one-half reporting

hour per response, 750 annual burden

hours for all exchanges. The related

costs associated with these burden

hours are $41,625.00.

Written comments are invited on: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate

of the burden of the collection of

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on respondents, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology. Consideration will be given

to comments and suggestions, submitted

in writing within 60 days of this

publication.

Comments should be directed to:

Lewis W. Walker, Acting Director/Chief

Information Officer, Securities and

Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley

Martinson, 6432 General Green Way,

Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an email to: PRAMailbox@sec.gov.

4 In fact, some exchanges do not file any trading

suspension reports in a given year.

63035
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices

Dated: October 15, 200&:

Florence E. Harmon,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-25029 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58794; File No. SR-ISE2008-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

International Securities Exchange,

LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate

Effectiveness of Proposed Rule

Change Relating to Fee Changes

October 15, 2008.

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the

"Act"), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on October

10, 2008, the International Securities

Exchange, LLC (the "Exchange" or the

"ISE") filed with the Securities and

Exchange Commission the proposed

rule change, as described in Items I, II,

and III below, which items have been

prepared by the self-regulatory

organization. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change

from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The ISE is proposing to amend its

Schedule of Fees to establish fees for

transactions in options on 4 Premium

Products. 3 The text of the proposed rule

change is available on the ISE's Web site

(http://www.ise.com), at the principal

office of the ISE, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

H. Self-Regulatory Organization's

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

self-regulatory organization included

statements concerning the purpose of,

and basis for, the proposed rule change

and discussed any comments it received

on the proposed rule change. The text

of these statements may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below.

The self-regulatory organization has

prepared summaries, set forth in

sections A, B and C below, of the most

significant aspects of such statements.

115 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

217 CFR 240.19b-4.

3 Premium Products is defined in the Schedule of

Fees as the products enumerated therein.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose-The Exchange is

proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees

to establish fees for transactions in

options on the Claymore/BNY BRIC ETF

("EEB"),4 the iShares Dow Jones U.S.

Home Construction Index Fund

("ITB"),5 the Market Vectors Steel ETF

("SLX") 6 and the Short Dow 30 s

M

4 The "BNY BRIC Index" is a trademark of The

Bank of New York ("BNY") and has been licensed

for use for certain purposes by Claymore Advisors,

LLC ("Claymore"). All other trademarks and service

marks are the property of their respective owners.

Claymore is the investment adviser to EEB. The

Claymore/BNY BRIC ETF ("EEB") is not sponsored,

endorsed, or promoted by BNY and BNY makes no

representation regarding the advisability of

investing in EEB. Claymore and BNY have not

licensed or authorized ISE to (i) engage in the

creation, listing, provision of a market for trading,

marketing, and promotion of options on EEB or (ii)

to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service

marks in connection with the listing, provision of

a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of

options on EEB or with making disclosures

concerning options on EEB under any applicable

federal or state laws, rules or regulations. Claymore

and BNY do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such

activity by ISE, and are not affiliated in any manner

with ISE.

5 iShares® is a registered trademark of Barclays

Global Investors, N.A. ("BGI'l, a wholly owned

subsidiary of Barclays Bank PLC. "Dow Jones" and

"Dow Jones U.S. Home Construction Index" are

trademarks and service marks of Dow Jones &

Company, Inc. ("Dow )ones") and have been

licensed for use for certain purposes by BGI. All

other trademarks and service marks are the property

of their respective owners. The iShares Dow Jones

U.S. Home Construction Index Fund ("ITB") is not

sponsored, endorsed, or promoted by Dow Jones.

BGI and Dow ]ones have not licensed or authorized

ISE to (i) engage in the creation, listing, provision

of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion

of options on ITB or (ii) to use and refer to any of

their trademarks or service marks in connection

with the listing, provision of a market for trading,

marketing, and promotion of options on ITB or with

making disclosures concerning options on ITB

under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or

regulations. BGI and Dow Jones do not sponsor,

endorse, or promote such activity by ISE, and are

not affiliated in any manner with ISE.

'The Market Vectors Steel ETF ("SLX") is

distributed by Van Eck Securities Corporation

("VESC") and tracks the AMEX Steel Index. Van

Eck Associates Corporation ("VEAC') is the

investment adviser to SLX. VEAC has entered into

a licensing agreement with the American Stock

Exchange ("AMEX") to use the AMEX Steel Index

in connection with SLX. The AMEX' only

relationship with VEAC is the licensing of certain

trademarks, service marks and trade names of the

AMEX Steel Index. The AMEX does not sponsor,

endorse, or promote SLX and makes no

representation regarding the advisability of

investing in SLX. Neither VESC nor VEAC has

licensed or authorized ISE to (i) engage in the

creation, listing, provision of a market for trading,

marketing, and promotion of options on SLX or (ii)

to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service

marks in connection with the listing, provision of

a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of

options on SLX or with making disclosures

concerning options on SLX under any applicable

federal or state laws, rules or regulations. Neither

VESC nor VEAC sponsors, endorses, or promotes

ProShares ("DOG"). 7 The Exchange

represents that EEB, ITB, SLX and DOG

are eligible for options trading because

they constitute "Exchange-Traded Fund

Shares," as defined by ISE Rule 502(h).

All of the applicable fees covered by

this filing are identical to fees charged

by the Exchange for all other Premium

Products. Specifically, the Exchange is

proposing to adopt an execution fee for

all transactions in options on EEB, ITB,

•SLX and DOG.e The amount of the

execution fee for products covered by

this filing shall be $0.18 per contract for

all Public Customer Orders 9 and $0.20

per contract for all Firm Proprietary

orders. The amount of the execution fee

for all ISE Market Maker transactions

shall be equal to the execution fee

currently charged by the Exchange for

ISE Market Maker transactions in equity

options. 10 Finally, the amount of the

execution fee for all non-ISE Market

Maker transactions shall be $0.45 per

contract."1 Further, since options on

EEB, ITB, SLX and DOG are multiplylisted, the Exchange's Payment for

Order Flow fee shall apply to all these

products. The Exchange believes the

such activity by ISE, and are not affiliated in any

manner with ISE.

7"Dew Jones," "The Dow 30 SM," "DJIA," and the

"Dow Jones Industrial AverageTM" are service

marks of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. ("Dow Jones")

and have been licensed for use for certain purposes

by ProFunds Trust. All other trademarks and

service marks are the property of their respective

owners. The Short Dow 30 SM ProShares ("DOG") is

not sponsored, endorsed, or promoted by Dow

Jones. ProFunds Trust and Dow Jones has not

licensed or authorized ISE to (i) engage in the

creation, listing, provision of a.market for trading,

marketing, and promotion of options on DOG or (ii)

to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service

marks in connection with the listing, provision of

a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of

options on DOG or with making disclosures

concerning options on DOG under any applicable

federal or state laws, rules or regulations. ProFunds

Trust and Dow Jones does not sponsor, endorse, or

promote such activity by ISE and is not affiliated

in any manner with ISE.

8These fees will be charged only to Exchange

members. Under a pilot program that is set to expire

on July 31, 2009, these fees will also be charged to

Linkage Principal Orders ("Linkage P Orders") and

Linkage Principal Acting as Agent Orders ("Linkage

P/A Orders"). The amount of the execution fee

charged by the Exchange for Linkage P Orders and

Linkage P/A Orders is $0.24 per contract side and

$0,15 per contract side, respectively. See Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 58143 (July 11, 2008), 73

FR 41388 (July 18,2008) (SR-ISE-2008-52).

9 Public Customer Order is defined in Exchange

Rule 100(a)(39) as an order for the account of a

Public Customer. Public Customer is defined in

Exchange Rule 100(a)(38) as a person or entity that

is not a broker or dealer in securities.

la The Exchange applies a sliding scale, between

$0.01 and $0.18 per contract side, based on the

number of contracts an ISE market maker trades in

a month.

11 The amount of the execution fee for non-ISE

Market Maker transactions executed in the

Exchange's Facilitation and Solicitation

Mechanisms is $0.19 per contract.

63036
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

proposed rule change will further the

Exchange's goal of introducing new

products to the marketplace that are

competitively priced.

2. Basis-The Exchange believes that

the'proposed rule change is consistent

with the objectives of Section 6 of the

Act,' 2 in general, and furthers the

objectives of Section 6(b)(4), 13 in

particular, in that it is designed to

provide for the equitable allocation of

reasonable dues, fees and other charges

among its members and other persons

using its facilities.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's

Statement on Burden on Competition

The proposed rule change does not

impose any burden on competition that

is not necessary or appropriate in.

furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants or Others

The Exchange has not solicited, and

does not intend to solicit, comments on

this proposed rule change. The

Exchange has not received any

unsolicited written comments from

members or other interested parties.

iI. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

The foregoing rule change has become

effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3) of

the Act 14 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 15

thereunder. At any time within 60 days

of the filing of such proposed rule

change, the Commission may summarily

abrogate such rule change if it appears

to the Commission that such action is

necessary or appropriate in the public

interest, for the protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of

the following methods:

Electronic Comments

* Use the Commission's Internet

comment form http://www.sec.govrules/sro.shtml); or

e Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File

1215 U.S.C. 78f(b).

1315 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

1415 U.S.C. 78s(b](3}(AI. 15 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2) [sic).-

No. SR-ISE-2008-77 on the subject

line.

Paper Comments

* Send paper comments in triplicate

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 10( F Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File

Number SR-ISE-2008-77. This.file

number should be-included on the

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the

Commission process and review your

comments more efficiently, please use

only one method. The Commission will

post all comments on the Commissions

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.govl

rules/sro.shtm1). Copies of the

submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating t6 the

proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying in

the Commission's Public Reference

Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,

DC 20549, on official business days

between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.

Copies of such filing also will be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the ISE. All

comments received will be posted

without change; the Commission does

not edit personal identifying

information from submissions. You

should submit only information that

you wish to make available publicly. All

submissions should refer to File

Number SR-ISE-2008-77 and should be

submitted by November 12, 2008.

. For the Commission, by the Division of

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated

authority.1 6

Florence E. Harmon,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-25164 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

1617 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58772; File No. SR-Phlx2008-72]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness

of Proposed Rule Change and

Amendment No. 1 Thereto by the

NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Relating to a

Surcharge Fee

October 10, 2008.

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

("Act"),' and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on October

1, 2008, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.

("Phbx" or "Exchange") filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

("SEC" or "Commission") the proposed

rule change as described in Items I, II,

and III, below, which Items have been

prepared by the Exchange. On October

7, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment

No. 1 to the proposal.3 The Commission

is publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change,

as amended, from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange, pursuant to section

19(b)(1) of the Act 4 and Rule 19b-4

thereunder,5 proposes to assess a

surcharge fee 6 of $0.10 per contract side

on firm/proprietary, firm/proprietary

facilitation, Registered Option Trader

(on-floor), specialist, and broker/dealer

(AUTOM and non-AUTOM delivered)

equity option transactions in the

following products: (1) Options on the

one-tenth of the value of the Nasdaq 100

Index (the "Mini Nasdaq 100 Index" or

"MNX"); (2) options an the full value of

the Nasdaq 100 Index 7 (the "Full-size

Nasdaq 100 Index" or "NDX"); (3)

options on the Russell 2000® Index (the

"Full Value Russell Index" or "RUT"),

and (4) options on the one-tenth value

115 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

217 CFR 240.19b-4.

3 Amendment No. I fixed typographical errors in

the rule text of the original filing that were not

being changed in this proposed rule change to

match the current rule text. 415 US.C. 7as(b)(1).

5 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

6 The Exchange now proposes to refer to "license

fees" as "surcharge fees" on its fee schedule.

7NASDAQr, NASDAQ-1000 and NASDAQ-100

Index® are registered trademarks of The NASDAQ

OMX Group, Inc. (which with its affiliates are the

"Corporations") and are licensed for use by the

NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. in connection with the

trading of options products based on the NASDAQ100 IndexO.

63037
Federal Register / Vo.l. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices

Russell 2000® Index 8 (the "Reduced

Value Russell Index" or "RMN"). 9 A

surcharge fee will not apply to customer

transactions.10

The surcharge fees would be assessed

on the applicable equity option

transactions, regardless of whether any

fee caps relating to comparison or

transaction charges are imposed.

The Exchange also proposes to credit

equity option specialist units any

applicable surcharge fee that is assessed

in connection with customer orders that

are delivered to the limit order book via

Phlx XL 11 or via the Exchange's Options

Floor Broker Management System

("FBMS") 12 and subsequently executed

via the Intermarket Option Linkage '3 as

a Russell 20000' is a trademark and service mark

of the Frank Russell Company, used under license.

Neither Frank Russell Company's publication of the

Russell Indexes nor its licensing of its trademarks

for use in connection with securities or other

financial products derived from a Russell Index in

any way suggests or implies a representation or

opinion by Frank Russell Company as to the

attractiveness of investment in any securities or

other financial products based upon or derived

from any Russell Index. Frank Russell Company is

not the issuer of any such securities or other

financial products and makes no express or implied

warranties of merchantability or fitness for any

particular purpose with respect to any Russell

Index or any data included or reflected therein, nor as to results to be obtained by any person or any

entity from the use of the Russell Index or any data

included or reflected therein. 9 Currently, a $0.10 per contrat side license fee

is assessed on MNX and NDX products and a $0.15

per contract side surcharge fee is assessed on'RUT

and RMN products after the $60,000 "Firm Related"

Equity Option and Index Option Cap fee cap is

reached. (Equity option and index option "firm"

transactions are comprised of equity option firm/

proprietary comparison transactions, equity option

firm/proprietary transactions, equity option firm/

proprietary facilitation transactions, index option

firm (proprietary and customer executions)

comparison transactions, index option firm/

proprietary transactions and index option firm/

proprietary facilitation transaction charges

(collectively "firm-related charges")). See e.g.

Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54981

(December 20, 2006), 71 FR 78251 (December 28,

2006); and 53287 (February 14, 2006), 71 FR 9186

(February 22, 2006).

10Currently the Exchange does not charge equity

option transaction charges for customer executions,

but charges a $0.12 per contract equity option

transaction charge for customer executions in MNX

and NDX.

11PhIx XL, formerly referred to as AUTOM, is the

Exchange's electronic trading platform. See

Exchange Rule 1080. 1

2 FBMS is designed to enable Floor Brokers and/

or their employees to enter, route and report

transactions stemming from options orders received

on the Exchange. FBMS also is designed to establish

an electronic audit trail for options orders

represented and executed by Floor Brokers on the

Exchange, such that the audit trail provides an

accurate, time-sequenced record of electronic and

other orders, quotations and transactions on the

Exchange, beginning with the receipt of an order by

the Exchange, and further documenting the life of

the order through the process of execution, partial

execution, or cancellation of that order. See

Exchange Rule 1080. Commentary.06. 13 Linkage is governed by the Options Linkage

Authority under the conditions set forth under the

a Principal Acting as Agent ("P/A")

order. 14

In addition, the Exchange proposes to

delete certain license fees from its fee

schedule.

The text of the proposed rule change

is available on the Exchange's Web site

at http://www.phlx.com/regulatoryl

regjrulefilings.aspx.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

Exchange included statements

concerning the purpose of and basis for

the proposed rule change and discussed

any comments it received on the

proposed rule change. The text of these

statements may be examined at the

places specified in Item IV below. The

Exchange has prepared summaries, set

forth in sections A, B, and C below, of

the most significant aspects of such

statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose

The purpose of assessing a surcharge

fee of $0.10 per contract side as set forth

in this proposal is to remain

,competitive ' 5 and to help offset the

costs associated with the license fees

that are incurred in connection with the

trading of the RUT, RMN, MNX and

NDX products. Due to competitive

pressures in the industry, the Exchange

proposes to continue excluding equity

option customer transactions from the

surcharge fee.

The surcharge fees would be assessed

on the applicable equity option

transactions,' 6 regardless of whether

Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an

Intermarket Option Linkage (the "Plan") approved

by the Securities and Exchange Commission

("SEC"). The registered U.S. options markets are

linked together on a real-time basis through a

network capable of transporting orders and

messages to and from each market.

14 A P/A order is an order for the principal

account of a specialist (or equivalent entity on

another participant exchange that is authorized to

represent public customer orders), reflecting the

terms of a related unexecuted public customer order

for which the specialist is acting as agent. See

Linkage Plan section 2(16)(a) and Exchange Rule

1083.

1S See e.g. Securities Exchange Act Release No.

57128 (anuary 10, 2008), 73 FR 2969 (January 16,

2008).

16 Although they are index options, RUT, RMN,

MNX and NDX are assessed fees pursuant to the

Exchange's equity option charges fee schedule. See

the Exchange's Summary of Equity Option, and

MNX, NDX, RUT and RMN Charges fee schedule

and Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58049

(June 27, 2008), 73 FR 38286 (July 3. 2008); and

any fee caps relating to comparison or

transaction charges are imposed.17 The

MNX, NDX, RUT and RMN surcharge

fees that are assessed would not count

towards the calculation of the $60,000

"Firm Related" Equity Option and

Index Option cap. Additionally,

consistent with current practice, the

proposed $0.10 per contract surcharge

fees would not be subject to the $1,000

daily or $25,000 monthly dividend,

merger and short stock interest

strategies transaction caps, nor would

they count towards reaching the daily or

monthly caps. 18

The purpose of providing a $0.10 per

contract surcharge fee credit to equity

option specialist units is to help

alleviate the potential economic burden

of the surcharge fee imposed on

Exchange specialist units in connection

with routing Linkage charges, as

described above.' 9 The Exchange

believes that it is appropriate to assist

specialist units in offsetting some of the

costs that they incur in routing orders to

other options exchanges in order to

obtain the National Best Bid and Offer.

Additionally, the Exchange is deleting

the current license fee on the KSX, KIX

and HAI products because it no longer

offers these products for trading.

Additionally, the Exchange is deleting

the current license fee on the BKX KRX,

MFX products, which may, in turn, help

to promote trading in these products.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that its

proposal to amend its schedule of fees

is consistent with section 6(b) of the

Act 20 in general, and furthers the

objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act 21

in particular, in that it is an equitable

allocation of reasonable fees and other

charges among Exchange members. The

55473 (March 14, 2007), 72 FR 13338 (March 21,

2007).

17 For example, the surcharge fee of $0.10 per

contract side would be assessed on the MNX, NDX,

RUT and RMN products, regardless of whether: (1)

The ROT (on-floor) and specialist 4.5 million

contract monthly cap; or (2) the 14,000 daily

contract cap ROT transaction and comparison

charges and specialist transaction charges when

contra-party to non-AUTOM delivered customer

orders is reached. The surcharge fee of $0.10 per

contract side would also be assessed regardless of

whether the $60,000 "Firm Related" Equity Option

and Index Option Cap fee is reached.

18 As a result of this proposal, the reference to the

$0.05 per contract side license fee for dividend

strategies and short stock interest strategies would

be deleted as it is no longer necessary because a

$0.10 per contract side surcharge fee will apply and

appear separately on the fee schedule.

29This is similar to an option transaction charge

credit given to specialist units in connection with

Linkage orders. See Securities Exchange Act

Release No. 57434 (March 5, 2008), 73 FR 13269

(March 12, 2008).

2e 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

21 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

63038
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

Exchange believes that it is equitable for

members who trade these products to

pay the surcharge fee as the Exchange

pays a license fee to trade these

products. Additionally, the Exchange,

due to competitive pressures in the

industry, believes that it is equitable to

continue to exclude equity option

customer transactions from the

surcharge fee. The Exchange also

believes that it is equitable to provide a

surcharge fee credit to assist specialist

units in offsetting some of the costs that

they incur in routing orders to other

options exchanges in order to obtain the

National Best Bid and Offer.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change will impose

any burden on competition not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance

of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

No written comments were either

solicited or received.

II. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

The foregoing rule change has become

effective pursuant to section

19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 2 2 and

paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 23

thereunder. At any time within 60 days

of the filing of the proposed rule change,

the Commission may summarily

abrogate such rule change if it appears

to the Commission that such action is

necessary or appropriate in the public

interest, for the protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act. 24

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views and

arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of

the following methods:

2215 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

2317 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 24 For purposes of calculating the 60-day period

within which the Commission may summarily

abrogate the proposed rule change under section

19(b1(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers

the period to commence on October 7, 2008, the

date on which Phlx submitted Amendment No. 1.

See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

Electronic Comments

* Use the Commission's Internet

comment form (http://www.sec.govl

rules/sro.shtml); or

* Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File

Number SR-Phlx-2008-72 on the

subject line.

Paper Comments

* Send paper comments in triplicate

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File

Number SR-Phlx-2008-72.'This file

number should be included-on the

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the

Commission process and review your

comments more efficiently, please use

only one method. The Commission will

post all comments on the Commission's

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.govrules/sro.shtml). Copies of the

submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying in

the Commission's Public Reference

Room on official business days between

the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies

of such filing also will be available for

inspection and copying at the principal

office of the Exchange. All comments

received will be posted without change;

the Commission does not edit personal

identifying information from

submissions. You should submit only

information that you wish to-make

available publicly. All submissions

should refer to File Number SR-Phlx2008-72 and should be submitted on or

before November 12, 2008.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated

authority. 25

Florence E. Harmon,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-25030 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 8011-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates

of Public Convenience and Necessity

and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed

Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart 0)

During the Week Ending October 10,

2008

The following Applications for

Certificates of Public Convenience and

Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier

Permits were filed under Subpart B

(formerly Subpart 03 of the Department

of Transportation's Procedural

Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et

seq.). The due date for Answers,

Conforming Applications, or Motions to

Modify Scope are set forth below for

each application. Following the Answer

period DOT may process the application

by expedited procedures. Such

procedures may consist of the adoption

of a show-cause order, a tentative order,

or in appropriate cases a final order

without further proceedings.

Docket Number: DOT-OST-2008-

0301.

Date Filed: October 10, 2008.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming

Applications, or Motion to Modify

Scope: October 31, 2008.

Description: Application of Orbest

S.A. ("Orbest") requesting issuance of a

foreign air carrier permit to the full

extent authorized by the Air Transport

Agreement between the United States

and the European Community and the

Member States of the European

Community to enable Orbest to engage

in: (i) Foreign scheduled and charter air

transportation of persons, -property and

mail between any point or points in a

Member State of the European Union

and any point or points in the United

States and beyond or behind

coextensive with the rights provided

under the US-EC Agreement; (ii) foreign

scheduled and charter air transportation

of persons, property and mail between

any point or points in the United States

and any point or points in any member

of the European Common Aviation

Area; (iii) other charter pursuant to prior

approval requirements; and (iv)

transportation authorized by any

additional route rights made available to

European Community carriers in the

future. Orbest also requests exemption

authority to the extent necessary to

enable it to hold out and provide the

2517 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

63039
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices

service described above pending

issuance of a foreign air carrier permit.

Renee V. Wright,

Program Manager, Docket Operations,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. E8-25146 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance;

Periodic Inspection of Commercial

Motor Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice on State periodic

inspection programs.

SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces its

acceptance of the State of

Massachusetts' periodic inspection (PI)

program for commercial motor vehicles

(CMVs). The Agency has reviewed the

State's inspection program for CMVs

and determined that it should be added

to the list of programs which have been

determined to be comparable to, or as

effective as, the Federal. PI requirements

contained in the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The State

,requires CMVs to be inspected annually

or within 7 days of registration for

newly acquired vehicles. The agency

has published a list of such programs in

the Federal Register previously, and

this list has been revised occasionally.

Including Massachusetts, 22 States, the-.

Alabama Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Board, the District of Columbia, 10

Canadian Provinces, and one Canadian

Territory have PI programs which have

been determined to be comparable to, or

as effective as, the Federal PI

requirements.

DATES: This action is effective on

October 22, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Michael Huntley, Chief of the Vehicle

and Roadside Operations Division, MCPSV, (202) 366-5370, Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration, 1200

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,

DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45

a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 210 of the Motor Carrier

Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. 31142)

(the Act) requires the Secretary of

Transportation to prescribe standards

for annual or more frequent inspection

of CMVs unless the Secretary finds

another inspection system is-as effective

as an annual or more frequent

inspection. On December 7, 1988, in

response to the Act, the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA), the

agency within the Department of

Transportation responsible for motor

carrier safety until 1999, published a

final rule amending part 396 of the

FMCSRs (53 FR 49402). The final rule

requires CMVs operated in interstate

commerce to be inspected at least once

a year. The inspection is to be based on

Federal inspection standards, or a State

inspection program determined by the

FHWA to be comparable to, or as

effective as, the Federal standards.

Accordingly, if the agency determines a

State's PI program is comparable to, or

as effective as, the requirements of part

396, then a motor carrier must ensure all

of its CMVs which are required by that

State to be inspected through the State's

inspection program are so inspected. If

a State does not have such a program,

the motor carrier is responsible for

ensuring its CMVs are inspected using

one of the alternatives included in the

final rule.

On March 16, 1989, the FHWA

published a notice in the Federal

Register that requested States and other

interested parties to identify and

provide information on the CMV

inspection programs in their respective

jurisdictions (54 FR 11020). Upon

review of the information submitted, the

FHWA published a list of State

inspection programs that were

determined to be comparable to the

Federal PI requirements (54 FR 50726,

December 8, 1989). This initial list

included 15 States and the District of

Columbia. The list was revised on

September 23, 1991, to include the

inspection programs of the Alabama

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Board,

California, Hawaii, Louisiana,

Minnesota, all of the Canadian

Provinces, and the Yukon Territory (56

FR 47982). On November 27, 1992, the

list was revised to include the

Wisconsin bus inspection program (57

FR 56400). On April 14, 1994, the list

was revised to include the Texas CMV

inspection program (59 FR 17829). The

list was revised on November 7, 1995,

to include the Connecticut bus

inspection program (60 FR 56183). The

most recent revision was made on

February 19, 1998 to include the Ohio

inspection program for church buses (63

FR 8516), and a notice announcing

FMCSA's acceptance of certain

enhancements to the program on June

18, 2001 (66 FR 32863).

Determination: State of Massachusetts

Inspection Program

The State of Massachusetts (the State)

has implemented a mandatory annual

inspection requirement for all buses

(vehicles designed to transport 16 or

more passengers, including the driver)

and trucks as part of its program to

improve the safety of operation of

CMVs. As of October 1, 2008, the State

prohibits any person from operating

CMVs that are designed to transport 16

or more passengers, including the

driver, or that have a gross vehicle

weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,001

pounds) or more, unless the vehicle

displays a valid safety inspection decal

(540 Code of Massachusetts Regulations

[CMR] 4.00 and 310 CMR 60.02).

The FMCSA has determined that the

Massachusetts inspection program in

effect as of October 1, 2008, is

comparable to, or as effective as, the

Federal PI requirements. Therefore,

motor carriers operating CMVs which

are subject to the State's program and

which are subject to the FMCSRs must

use the State's program to satisfy the

Federal PI requirements.

It should be noted that in accepting

the State's PI program, FMCSA also

accepts the recordkeeping requirements

associated with the inspection program.

Upo successful completion of the

Massachusetts Commercial Motor

Vehicle Safety Inspection a

comprehensive Vehicle Inspection

Report (VIR) is created which identifies

the vehicle, inspector, and the status of

the inspection. In addition to the VIR,

a program inspection sticker indicating

the vehicle has passed or failed the

inspection will be affixed to the

vehicle's windshield. For trailers, the

required proof of inspection will be the

VIR.

Massachusetts will also have a

database of all vehicle inspections

performed. The vehicle inspection

information will be captured at the end

of the inspection and stored for a period

of five years. State officials can query

the database to capture a specific

inspection report, or to summarize and

analyze a subset or all CMV safety

inspecfion records.

States With Equivalent Periodic

Inspection Programs

The following is a complete list of

States with inspection programs that

FMCSA has determined are comparable

to, or as effective as, the Federal PI

requirements.

Alabama (LPG Board),

California,

Connecticut,

District of Columbia,

63040
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

Hawaii,

Illinois,

Louisiana,

Maine,

Maryland,

Massachusetts,

Michigan,

Minnesota,

New Hampshire,

New Jersey,

New York,

Ohio,

Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island,

Texas,

Utah,

Vermont,

Virginia,

West Virginia,

Wisconsin.

Please note that two States have been

removed from the previous list of

approved programs. Arkansas no longer

has a periodic inspection program for

buses comparable to, or as effective, as

the Federal PI program. Oklahoma has

repealed its inspection requirements.

Both States have therefore been delisted. As required by 49 CFR

396.23(b)(2), each motor carrier in

Arkansas and Oklahoma must ensure

that the periodic inspection required by

49 CFR 396.17 is performed on all

CMVs under its control.

In addition to the States listed above,

the FMCSA accepts the inspection

programs of the 10 Canadian Provinces

(Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,

New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova

Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island,

Quebec and Saskatchewan) and the

Yukon Territory are comparable to, or as

effective as, the Federal PI requirements.

All other States either have no PI

programs for CMVs or their PI programs

have not been determined by the

FMCSA to be comparable to, or as

effective as, the Federal PI requirements.

Should any of these States wish to

establish a program or modify their

programs in order to make them

comparable to the Federal requirements,

the State should contact the appropriate

FMCSA division office.

List of Subjects

Highway safety, Highways and roads,

Motor carriers, Motor vehicle

maintenance, Motor vehicle safety,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31132, 31136, 31142,

31502, and 31504; 49 CFR 1.73.

Issued on: October 14, 2008.

John H. Hill,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. E8-25174 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 4910-EX-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0267]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption

Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its

decision to exempt thirty-nine

individuals from its rule prohibiting

persons with insulin-treated diabetes

mellitus (ITDM) from operating

commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in

interstate commerce. The exemptions

will enable these individuals to operate

CMVs-in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective

October 22, 2008. The exemptions

expire on October 22, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical

Programs, (202) 366-4001,

fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, Room

W64-224, Department of

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-

0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

You may see all the comments online

through the Federal Document

Management System (FDMS) at: http:!!

www.regulations.gov.

Docket: For access to the docket to

read background documents or

comments, go to http://

www.regulations.gov and/or Room

W12-140 on the ground level of the

West Building, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act: Anyone may search the

electronic form of all comments

received into any of DOT's dockets by

the name of the individual submitting

the comment (or of the person signing

the comment, if submitted on behalf of

an association, business, labor union, or

other entity). You may review DOT's

complete Privacy Act Statement in the

Federal Register (65 FR 19476, Apr. 11,

2000). This statement is also available at

http://Docketsinfo.dot.gov.

Background

On September 9, 2008, FMCSA

published a notice announcing receipt

of applications for exemption from the

Federal diabetes standard from thirtynine individuals, and requested

comments from the public (73 FR

52451). The public comment period

closed on October 9, 2008, and no

comments were received.

FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility

of the thirty-nine applicants and

determined that granting the

exemptions to these individuals would

achieve a level of safety equivalent to,

or greater than, the level that would be

achieved by complying with the current

regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving

Experience of the Applicants

The Agency established the current

standard for diabetes in 1970 because

several risk studies indicated that

diabetic drivers had a higher rate of

crash involvement than the general

population. The diabetes rule provides

that "A person is physically qualified to

drive a commercial motor vehicle if that

person has no established medical

history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes

mellitus currently requiring insulin for

control" (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).

FMCSA established its diabetes

exemption program, based on the

Agency's July 2000 study entitled "A

Report to Congress on the Feasibility of

a Program to Qualify Individuals with

Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to

Operate in Interstate Commerce as

Directed by the Transportation Act for

the 21st Century." The report concluded

that a safe and practicable protocol to

allow some drivers with ITDM to

operate CMVs is feasible. The 2003

Notice (68 FR 52442) in conjunction

with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR

67777) Federal Register Notice provides

the current protocol for allowing such

drivers to operate CMVs in interstate

commerce.

These thirty-nine applicants have had

ITDM over a range of 1 to 24 years.

These applicants report no

hypoglycemic reaction that resulted in

loss of consciousness or seizure, that

required the assistance of another

person, or that resulted in impaired

cognitive function without warning

symptoms in the past 5 years (with one

year of stability following any such

episode). In each case, an

endocrinologist has verified that the

driver has demonstrated willingness to

properly monitor and manage his or her

diabetes, received education related to

diabetes management, and is on a stable

insulin regimen. Each driver reports no

other disqualifying conditions,

including diabetes-related

complications. Each meets the vision

standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

63041
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

The qualifications and medical

condition of each applicant were stated

and discussed in detail in the

September 9, 2008, Federal Register

Notice (73 FR 52451). Therefore, they

will not be repeated in this notice.

Basis for Exemption Determination

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,

FMCSA may grant an exemption from

the diabetes standard in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to

achieve an equivalent or greater level of

safety than would be achieved without

the exemption. The exemption allows

the applicants to operate CMVs in

interstate commerce.

To evaluate the effect of these

exemptions on safety, FMCSA

considered medical reports about the

applicants' ITDM and vision and

reviewed the treating endocrinologist's

medical opinion related to the ability of

the driver to safely operate a CMV while

using insulin.

Consequently, FMCSA finds that

exempting these applicants from the

diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)

is likely to achieve a level of safety

equal to that existing without the

exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

The terms and conditions of the

exemption will be provided to the

applicants in the exemption document

and they.include the following: (1) That

each individual submits to FMCSA a

quarterly monitoring checklist

completed by the treating

endocrinologist as well as an annual

checklist with a comprehensive medical

evaluation; (2) that each individual

reports to FMCSA within 2 business

days of occurrence, all episodes of

severe hypoglycemia, significant

complications, or inability to manage

diabetes; also, any involvement in an

accident or any other adverse event in

a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or

fiot they are related to an episode of

hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's

or optometrist's report to the medical

examiner at the time of the annual

medical examination; and (4) that each

individual provide a copy of the annual

medical certification to the employer for

retention in the driver's qualification

file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's

qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must also have a

copy of the certification when driving,

for presentation to a duly authorized

Federal, State, or local enforcement

official..

Discussion of Comments

FMCSA received no comments in this

proceeding.

Conclusion

After considering the comments to the

docket, and based upon its evaluation of

the thirty-nine exemption applications,

FMCSA exempts, Joseph L. Bartolomei,

Michael B. Bennington, Sr., Keith A.

Callahan, John E. Coppedge, Roland D.

Demers, Gary J. Drackert, Larry J.

Eischens, James L. Erviti, Richard C.

Frost, Charles W. Garrison, Timothy W.

Goforth, Chad C. Gittings, David J.

Hanzl, John A. Hayes, Thomas R. Jones,

David H. Keawe, James G. Keesling,

Chadwick A. Lang, Barry D. Langley,

John M. Lyon, Douglas S. Morical,

Robert L. O'Neill, Barry S. Neukum,

Mark E. Peters, Brian M. Rossiter, Roger

M. Russell, John G. Schaible, Jr., Rory J.

Seleman, Thomas P. Shergold,

Kristopher R. Soto, Frank L. Tomlinson,

Eric D. Travland, Ralph E. Vindittie,

James E. Waller, III, Chase M. Wells,

Laurie E. White, Robert E. Williams,

Craig E. Wolf, and Stephanie D. Wright

from the ITDM standard in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions

listed under "Conditions and

Requirements" above.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)

and 31315 each exemption will be valid

for two years unless revoked earlier by

FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked

if: (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. If the exemption is still effective

at the end of the 2-year period, the

person may apply to FMCSA for a

renewal under procedures in effect at

that time.

Issued on October 14, 2008.

Larry W. Minor,

Associate Administratorfor Policy and

Program Development.

[FR Doc. E8-25172 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 4910-EX-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

[Docket ID. FMCSA-2008-0293]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption

Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for

exemptions from the diabetes standard;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of

applications from 39 individuals for

exemptions from the prohibition against

persons with insulin-treated diabetes

mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial

motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate

commerce. If granted, the exemptions

would enable these individuals with

ITDM to operate commercial motor

vehicles in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before November 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments

bearing the Federal Docket Management

System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA20078-0293 using any of the following

methods:

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

on-line instructions for submitting

comments.

a Mail: Docket Management Facility;

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building

Ground Floor, Room W12-140,

Washington, DC 20590-0001.

* Hand Delivery West Building

Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

* Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

Each submission must include the

Agency name and the docket ID for this

Notice. Note that DOT posts all

comments received without change to

http://www.regulations.gov, including

any personal information included in a

comment. Please see the Privacy Act

heading below.

Docket: For access to the docket to

read background documents or

comments, go to http://

www.regulations.gov at any time or

Room W12-140 on the ground level of

the West Building, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

FDMS is available 24 hours each day,

365 days each year. If you want

acknowledgment that we received your

comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or

postcard or print the acknowledgement

page that appears after submitting

comments on-line.

Privacy Act: Anyone may search the

electronic form of all comments

received into any of our dockets by the

name of the individual submitting the

comment (or of the person signing the

comment, if submitted on behalf of an

association, business, labor union, etc.).

You may review the DOT's complete

63042
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal

Register published on April 11, 2000

(65 FR 19476). This information is also

available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical

Programs, (202) 366-4001,

fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA,

Department of Transportation, 1200

New Jersey Avenue, SE.; Room W64-

224, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,

FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-

year period if it finds "such exemption

would likely achieve a level of safety

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the

level that would be achieved absent

such exemption." The statutes also

allow the Agency to renew exemptions

at the end of the 2-year period. The 39

individuals listed in this notice have

recently requested an exemption from

the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR

391;41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of

CMVs in interstate commerce.

Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate

the qualifications of each applicant to

determine whether granting the

exemption will achieve the required

level of safety mandated by the statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Charles 1. Berg

Mr. Berg, age 58, has had ITDM since

2005. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Berg meets the requirements

of the vision standard at 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he has stable proliferative diabetic

retinopathy. He holds a Class A

Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from

North Dakota.

Donavan A. Bloomfield

Mr. Bloomfield, age 46, has had ITDM

since 2006. His endocrinologist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he has had no hypoglycemic reactions

resulting in loss of consciousness,

requiring the assistance of another

person, or resulting in impaired

cognitivb function that occurred without

warning in the past 5 years; understands

diabetes management and monitoring;

and has stable control of his diabetes

using insulin, and is able to drive a

CMV safely. Mr. Bloomfield meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he does not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D

operator's license from Massachusetts.

Ronald G. Breunig

Mr. Breunig, 64, has had ITDM since

2003. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Breunig meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he does not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A

CDL from Oregon.

Gary H. Cooper

Mr. Cooper, 46, has had ITDM since

1995. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Cooper meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he does not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A

CDL from Ohio.

Douglas M. Crafton

Mr. Crafton, 57, has had ITDM since

2007. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Crafton meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he does not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds an

operator's license from Virginia.

Herschel J. Crawford

Mr. Crawford, 51, has had ITDM since

2006. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past.5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Crawford meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class B CDL from Alaska.

Ernest A. Emery

Mr. Emery, 57, has had ITDM since

2000. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Emery meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he has stable

nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from Rhode

Island.

David L. Farran

Mr. Farran, 51, has had ITDM since

2008. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Farran meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.

6304-3
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

Christopher S. Fox

Mr. Fox, 42, has.had ITDM since

2007. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Fox meets the requirements

of the vision standard at 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined

him in 2008 and certified that he does

not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds

a Class A CDL from Ohio.

James E. Gaines

Mr. Gaines, 53, has had ITDM since

2005. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Gaines meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he does not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A

CDL from New Jersey.

Terry D. Garner

Mr. Garner, 37, has had ITDM since

1988. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Garner meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class C operator's license

from Maryland.

Mitchell P. Gibson

Mr. Gibson, 32, has had ITDM since

1981. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Gibson meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.

Allan D. Gralapp

Mr. Gralapp, 66, has had ITDM since

2007. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions. resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another persoh, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Gralapp meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.

.Scott L. Halm

Mr. Hahm, 51, has had ITDM since

2003. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Halm meets the requirements

of the vision standard at 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10). His optometris t examined

him in 2008 and certified that he does

not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds

a Class A CDL from Ohio.

Joseph M. Hengel

Mr. Hengel, 43, has had ITDM since

2004. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Hengel meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class D operator's license

from New Jersey.

Clinton J. Herrold

Mr. Herrold, 44, has had ITDM since

2004. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Herrold meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he does not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A

CDL from Pennsylvania.

Brent L. Kreder

Mr. Kreder, 39, has had ITDM since

2007. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Kreder meets the

requirements of the vision-standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class E operator's license

from Missouri.

Reid T. Massey

Mr. Massey, 47, has had iTDM since

1993. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Massey meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from Maine.

I 

I

63044
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

Aaron R. Matkowski

Mr. Matkowski, 37, has had ITDM

since 1987. His endocrinologist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he has had no hypoglycemic reactions

resulting in loss of consciousness,

requiring the assistance of another

person, or resulting in impaired

cognitive function that occurred without

warning in the past 5 years; understands

diabetes management and monitoring;

and has stable control of his diabetes

using insulin, and is able to drive a

CMV safely. Mr. Matkowski meets the

requiremients of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he does not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class E

operator's license from Missouri.

Larry E. Mellinger

Mr. Mellinger, 49, has had ITDM

since 2006. His endocrinologist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he has had no hypoglycemic reactions

resulting in loss of consciousness,

requiring the assistance of another

person, or resulting in impaired

cognitive function that occurred without

warning in the past 5 years; understands

diabetes management and monitoring;

and has stable control of his diabetes

using insulin, and is able to drive a

CMV safely. Mr. Mellinger meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(1G). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he has stable

nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from

Pennsylvania.

Mark P. Moots

Mr. Moots, 51, has had ITDM since

2007. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Moots meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetid retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado.

Darryl W. Nelson

Mr. Nelson, 55, has had ITDM since

2004. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Nelson meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class B CDL from California.

Barry L. Paul

Mr. Paul, 48, has had ITDM since

2005. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another.person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has -

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Paul meets the requirements

of the vision standard at 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.

Thomas P. Quinlivan

Mr. Quinlivan, 53, has had ITDM

since 2008. His endocrinologist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he has had no hypoglycemic reactions

resulting in loss of consciousness,

requiring the assistance of another

person, or resulting in impaired

cognitive function that occurred without

warning in the past 5 years; understands

diabetes management and monitoring;

and has stable control of his diabetes

using insulin, and is able to drive a

CMV safely. Mr. Quinlivan meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from North

Carolina.

Mark L. Rigby

Mr. Rigby, 54, has had ITDM since

1989. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Rigby meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he does not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B

CDL from Utah.

Dale A. Roberts

Mr. Roberts, 56, has had ITDM since

1960. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss.

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Roberts meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he does not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B

CDL from Iowa.

Rhonda G. Sandersfeld

Ms. Sandersfeld, 36, has had ITDM

since 1980. Her endocrinologist

examined her in 2008 and certified that

she has had no hypoglycemic reactions

resulting in loss of consciousness,

requiring the assistance of another

person,'or resulting in impaired

cognitive function that occurred without

warning in the past 5 years; understands

diabetes management.and monitoring;

and has stable control of her diabetes

using insulin, and is able to drive a

CMV safely. Ms. Sandersfeld meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her

ophthalmologist examined her in 2008

and certified that she has stable

nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy.

She holds a Class C operator's license

from Iowa.

Robert M. Schulz

Mr. Schulz, 59, has had ITDM since

1974. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and dertified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Schulz meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him.in 2008

and certified that he does not have

63045
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D

operator's license from Wisconsin.

Jason P. Smith

Mr. Smith, 33, has had ITDM since

1999. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management ahd monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Smith meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he does.not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C

operator's license from Georgia.

Joel C. Smith

Mr. Smith, 55, has had ITDM since

2008. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Smith meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.

Dean A. Sullivan

Mr. Sullivan, 50, has had ITDM since

1973. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive functionthat occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Sullivan meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky.

James 0. Teague

Mr. Teague, 52, has had ITDM since

2007. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Teague meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.

Lawrence W. Thomas

Mr. Thomas, 48, has had ITDM since

2008. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring, and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Thomas meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he does not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D

operator's license from Arkansas.

Jack D. Thorpe

Mr. Thorpe, 65, has had ITDM since

2008. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Thorpe meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2008

and certified that he does not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D

operator's license from Arizona.

Robert J. Vance

Mr. Vance, 53, has had ITDM since

2005. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Vance meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class D operator's license

from Wisconsin.

John R. Watson

Mr. Watson, 55, has had ITDM since

2008. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Watson meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class C operator's license

from California.

John A. Witt

Mr. Witt, 45, has had ITDM since

2008. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Witt meets the requirements

of the vision standard at 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined

him in 2008 and certified that he does

not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds

a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

John J. Wojcik, Jr.

Mr. Wojcik, 45, has had ITDM since

2006. His endocrinologist examined him

in 2008 and certified that he has had no

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the

assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes

management and monitoring; and has

stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Wojcik meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

63046
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices

He holds a Class A CDL from

Connecticut.

Raymond W. Zimmerman, Jr.

Mr. Zimmerman, 51, has had ITDM

since 1988. His endocrinologist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he has had no hypoglycemic reactions

resulting in loss of consciousness,

requiring the assistance of another

person, or resulting in impaired

cognitive function that occurred without

warning in the past 5 years; understands

diabetes management and monitoring;

and has stable control of his diabetes

using insulin, and is able to drive a

CMV safely. Mr. Zimmerman meets the

requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist

examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class A CDL from Florida.

Request for Comments

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)

and 31315, FMCSA requests public

comment from all interested persons on

the exemption petitions described in

this notice. We will consider all

comments received before the close of

business on the closing date indicated

in the dates section of the Notice.

FMCSA notes that Section 4129 of the

Safe, Accountable, Flexible and

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

requires the Secretary to revise its

diabetes exemption program established

on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).1

The revision must provide for

individual assessment of drivers with

diabetes mellitus, and be consistent

with the criteria described in section

4018 of the Transportation Equity Act

for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).

Section 4129 requires: (1) The

elimination of the requirement for 3

years of experience operating CMVs

while being treated with insulin; and (2)

the establishment of a specified

minimum period of insulin use to

demonstrate stable control of diabetes

before being allowed to operate a CMV.

In response to section 4129, FMCSA

made immediate revisions to the

diabetes exemption program established

by the September 3, 2003 Notice.

FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year

driving experience and fulfilled the

requirements of section 4129 while

continuing to ensure that operation of

CMVs by drivers with ITDM will

Achieve the requisite level of safety

'Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 Notice as a

"final rule." However, the 2003 Notice did not issue

a "final rule" but did establish the procedures and

standards for issuing exemptions for drivers with

ITDM.

required of all exemptions granted

under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e).

Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA

to ensure that drivers of CMVs with

ITDM are not held to a higher standard

than other drivers, with the exception of

limited operating, monitoring and

medical requirements that are deemed

medically necessary.

FMCSA concluded that all of the

operating, monitoring and medical

requirements set out in the September 3,

2003 Notice, except as modified, were

in compliance with section 4129(d).

Therefore, all of the requirements set

out in the September 3, 2003 Notice,

except as modified by the Notice in the

Federal Register on November 8, 2005

(70 FR 67777), remain in effect.

Issued on: October 14, 2008.

Larry W. Minor,

Associate Administrator for Policy and

Program Development.

[FR Doc. E8-25173 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0266]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption

Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. -

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its

decision to exempt 26 individuals from

the vision requirement in the Federal

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations

(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable

these individuals to operate commercial

motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate

commerce without meeting the

prescribed vision standard. The Agency

has concluded that granting these

exemptions will provide a level of safety

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the

level of safety maintained without the

exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective

October 22, 2008. The exemptions

expire on October 22, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical

Programs, (202) 366-4001,

fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA,

Department of Transportation, 1200

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-

224, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. •

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

You may see all the comments online

through the Federal Document

Management System (FDMS) at http://

www.regulations.gov.

Docket: For access to the docket to

read background documents or

comments, go to http://

www.regulations.gov at any time or

Room W12-140 on the ground level of

the West Building, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

FDMS is available 24 hours each day,

365 days each year. If you want

acknowledgment that we received your

comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or

postcard or print the acknowledgement

page that appears after submitting

comments on-line.

Privacy Act: Anyone may search the

electronic form of all comments

received into any of our dockets by the

name of the individual submitting the

comment (or of the person signing the

comment, if submitted on behalf of an

association, business, labor union, etc.).

You may review the DOT's complete

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal

Register published on April 11, 2000

(65 FR 19476). This information is also

available at http://Docketsinfo.dot.gov.

Background

On September 4, 2008, FMCSA

published a notice of receipt of

exemption applications from certain

individuals, and requested comments

from the public (73 FR 51689). That

notice listed 25 applicants' case

histories. The 25 individuals applied for

exemptions from the vision requirement

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who

operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

- Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,

FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-

year period if it finds "such exemption

would likely achieve a level of safety

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the

level that would be achieved absent

such exemption." The statute also

allows the Agency to renew exemptions

at the end of the 2-year period.

Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the

25 applications on their merits and

made a determination to grant

exemptions to all of them. The comment

period closed on October 6, 2008.

In a previous notice (73 FR 48273),

the Agency noted that a public comment

was received challenging the validity of

some information that Mr. James W.

Lappan submitted in his application. At

this time, FMCSA has concluded

investigations regarding Mr. James W.

Lappan and has determined that he

63047 '
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices

meets FMCSA's criteria for a Federal

vision exemption.

Vision and Driving Experience of the

Applicants

The vision requirement in the

FMCSRs provides: A person is

physically qualified to drive a

commercial motor vehicle if that person

has distant visual acuity of at least 20/

40 (Snellen) in each eye without

corrective lenses or visual acuity

separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen)

or better with corrective lenses, distant

binocular acuity of a least 20/40

(Snellen) in both eyes with or without

corrective lenses, field of vision'of at

least 70' in the horizontal meridian in

each eye, and the ability to recognize

the colors of traffic signals and devices

showing standard red, green, and amber

(49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).

FMCSA recognizes that some drivers

do not meet the vision standard, but

have adapted their driving to

accommodate their vision limitation

and demonstrated their ability to drive

safely.

The 26 exemption applicants listed in

this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision standard in

one eye for various reasons, including

amblyopia, prosthesis, optic nerve defect, glaucoma, exotropia, and loss of

vision due to trauma. In most cases,

their eye conditions were not recently

developed. All but five ofthe applicants

were either born with their vision

impairments or have had them since

childhood. The five individuals who

sustained their vision conditions as

adults have had them for periods

ranging from 3 to 27 years.

Although each applicant has one eye

which does not meet the vision standard

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at

least 20/40 corrected vision in the other

eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has

'sufficient vision to perform all the tasks

necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'

opinions are supported by the

applicants' possession of valid

commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or

non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before

issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to

knowledge and skills tests designed to

evaluate their qualifications to operate a

CMV. All these applicants satisfied the

testing standards for their State of

residence. By meeting State licensing

requirements, the applicants

demonstrated their ability to operate a

commercial vehicle, with their limited

vision, to the satisfaction of the State.

While possessing a valid CDL or nonCDL, these 26 drivers have been

authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate

commerce, even though their vision

disqualified them from driving in

interstate commerce. They have driven

CMVs with their limited vision for

careers ranging from 3 to 35 years. In the

past 3 years, two of the drivers had

convictions for traffic violations and

three of them were involved in crashes.

The qualifications, experience, and

medical condition of each applicant

were stated and discussed in detail in

the September 4, 2008'notice (73 FR

51689).

Basis for Exenption Determination

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,

FMCSA may grant an exemption from

the vision standard in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely

to achieve an equivalent or greater level

of safety than would be achieved

without the exemption. Without the

exemption, applicants will continue to

be restricted to intrastate driving. With

the exemption, applicants can drive in

interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis

focuses on whether an equal or greater

level of safety is likely to be achieved by

permitting each of these drivers to drive

in interstate commerce as opposed to

restricting him or her to driving in

intrastate commerce. To evaluate the effect of these

exemptions on safety, FMCSA

considered not only the medical reports

about the applicants' vision, but also

their driving records and experience

with the vision deficiency.

To qualify for an exemption from the

vision standard, FMCSA requires a

person to present verifiable evidence

that he/she has driven a commercial

vehicle safely with the vision deficiency

for the past 3 years. Recent driving

performance is especially important in

evaluating future safety, according to

several research studies designed to

correlate past and future driving

performance. Results of these studies

support the principle that the best

predictor of future performance by a

driver is his/her past record of crashes

and traffic violations. Copies of the

studies may be found at docket number

FMCSA-98-3637.

We believe we can properly apply the

principle to monocular drivers, because

data from the Federal Highway

Administration's (FHWA) former waiver

study program clearly demonstrate the

driving performance of experienced "

monocular drivers in the program is

better than that of all CMV drivers

collectively. (See 61 FR 13338, 13345,

March 26, 1996). The fact that

experienced monocular drivers

demonstrated safe driving records in the

waiver program supports a conclusion

that other monocular drivers, meeting

the same qualifying conditions as those

required by the waiver program, are also

likely to have adapted to their vision

deficiency and will continue to operate

safely.

The first major research correlating

past and future performance was done

in England by Greenwood and Yulb in

1920.

Subsequent studies, building on that

model, concluded that crash rates for

the' same individual exposed to certain

risks for two different time periods vary

only slightly. (See Bates and Neyman,

University of California Publications in

Statistics, April 1952.) Other studies

demonstrated theories of predicting

crash proneness from crash history

coupled with other factors. These

factors-such as age, sex, geographic

location, mileage driven and conviction

history-are used every day by

insurance companies and motor vehicle

bureaus to predict the probability of an

individual experiencing future crashes.

(See Weber, Donald C., "Accident Rate

Potential: An Application of Multiple

Regression Analysis of a Poisson

Process," Journal of American Statistical

Association, June 1971) A 1964

California Driver Record Study prepared

by the California Department of Motor

Vehicles concluded that the best overall

crash predictor for both concurrent and

nonconcurrent events is the number of

single convictions. This study used 3

consecutive years of data, comparing the

experiences of drivers in the first 2 years

with their experiences in the final year.

Applying principles from these

studies to the past 3-year record of the

26 applicants, two of the applicants had

a traffic violation for speeding, and

three of the applicants were involved in

crashes. The applicants achieved this

record of safety while driving with their

vision impairment, demonstrating the

likelihood that they have adapted their

driving skills to accommodate their

condition. As the applicants' ample

driving histories with their vision

deficiencies are good predictors of

future performance. FMCSA concludes

their ability to drive safely can be

projected into the future.

We believe the applicants' intrastate

driving experience and history provide

an adequate basis for predicting their

ability to drive safely in interstate

commerce. Intrastate driving, like

interstate operations, involves

substantial driving on highways on the

interstate system and on other roads

built to interstate standards. Moreover,

driving in congested urban areas

exposes the driver to more pedestrian

and vehicular traffic than exists on

interstate highways. Faster reaction to

traffic and traffic signals is generally

required because distances between

them are more compact. These

63048
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 /.W6desda ,: October 22,;'2008 / Notices

conditions tax visual capacity and

driver response just as intensely as

interstate driving conditions. The

veteran drivers in this proceeding have

operated CMVs safely under those

conditions for at least 3 years, most for

much longer. Their experience and

driving records lead us to believe that

each applicant is capable of operating in

interstate commerce as safely as he/she

has been performing in intrastate

commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds

that exempting these applicants from

the vision standard in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level

of safety equal to that existing without

the exemption. For this reason, the

Agency is granting the exemptions for

the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.

31136(e) and 31315 to the 25 applicants

listed in the notice of September 4, 2008

(73 FR 51689).

We recognize that the vision of an

applicant may change and affect his/her

ability to operate a CMV as safely as in

the past. As a condition of the

exemption, therefore, FMCSA will

impose requirements on the 26

individuals consistent with the

grandfathering provisions applied to

drivers-who participated in the

Agency's vision waiver program.

Those requirements are found at 49

CFR 391.64(b) and include the

following:

(1) That each individual be physically

examined every year (a) by an

ophthalmologist or optometrist who

attests that the vision in the better eye

continues to meet the standard in 49 -

CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical

examiner who attests that the individual

is otherwise physically qualified under

49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's

or optometrist's report to the medical

examiner at the time of the annual

medical examination; and (3) that each

individual provide a copy of the annual

medical certification to the employer for

retention in the driver's qualification

file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's

qualification file if he/she is selfemployed.

The driver must also have a copy of

the certification when driving, for

presentation to a duly authorized

Federal, State, or local enforcement

official.

Discussion of Comments

FMCSA received three comments in

this proceeding. The comments were

considered and discussed below.

One of the comments was a

recommendation in favor of granting the

Federal vision exemption to Kevin

Quastad, the second was a

recommendation in favor of granting the

Federal vision exemption to all

applicants.

Advocates for Highway and Auto

Safety (Advocates) expressed opposition

to FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions

from the FMCSRs, including the driver

qualification standards. Specifically,

Advocates: (1) Objects to the manner in

which FMCSA presents driver

information to the public and makes

safety determinations; (2) objects to the

Agency's reliance on conclusions drawn

from the vision waiver program; (3)

claims the Agency has misinterpreted

statutory language on the granting of

exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and

31315); and finally (4) suggests that a

1999 Supreme Court decision affects the

legal validity of vision exemptions.

-The issues raised by Advocates were

addressed at length in 64 FR 51568

(September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962

(November 30, 1999), 64 FR 69586

(December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January

3, 2000), 65 FR 57230 (September 21,

2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001).

We will not address these points again

here, but refer interested parties to those

earlier discussions.

Conclusion

Based upon its evaluation of the 26

exemption applications, FMCSA

exempts, Larry W. Barnes, Rick A.

Benevides, Jack E. Benjamin, Allen S.

Bush, Todd A. Chapman, Delone W.

Dudley, Irvin L. Eaddy, Herman Hicks,

James W. Lappan, Ralph Landers,

Jeromy W. Leatherman, Ernest B.

Martin, Mark L. McWhorter, Charles D,

Messier, Raymond C: Miller, Dennis E.

Palmer, Jr., Gary W. Phelps, Kevin L.

Quastad, John E. Rains, James D. St.

Peter, Michael Sutton, Sylvester Silver,

Sylvester Silver, William R. Thomas,

Terrence L. Trautman, and David

Vallier, from the vision requirement in

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the

requirements cited above (49 CFR

391.64(b)).

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)

and 31315, each exemption will be valid

for 2 years unless revoked earlier by

FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked

if: (1) The person fails to comply with

the terms and conditions of the

exemption; (2) the exemption has

resulted in a lower level of safety than

was maintained before it was granted; or

(3) continuation of the exemption would

not be consistent with the goals and

objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

If the exemption is still effective at the

end of the 2-year period, the person may

apply to FMCSA for a renewal under

procedures in effect at that time.

Issued on: October 14, 2008.

Larry W. Minor,

Associate Administrator for Policy and

Program Development.

[FR Doc. E8-25176 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2008-

0162]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping

Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), United

States Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for public comment on

proposed collection of information.

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can

collect certain information from the

public, it must receive approval from

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). Under procedures established

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, before sebking OMB approval,

Federal agencies must solicit public

comment on proposed collections of

information, including extensions and

reinstatement of previously approved

collections. This document describes

one collection of information for which

NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the

docket notice numbers cited at the

beginning of this notice and be

submitted to Docket Management

Facility, West Building, Room W12-

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket

Management office is open on

weekdays, except Federal holidays,

from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. You may call the

office at 202-647-5527. You may also

submit comments electronically at

http://www.regulations.gov. Please

identify the proposed collection of

information for which a comment is

provided, by referencing its OMB

clearance Number. It is requested, but

not required, that 2 copies of the

comment be provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Complete copies of each request for

collection of information may be

obtained at no charge from Mr. Santiago

Navarro, Office of Crash Avoidance

Standards, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,

SE., Washington, DC 20590. Mr.

Navarro's telephone number is (202)

493-0248. His FAX number is (202)

63049
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

493-2739. Please identify the relevant

collection of information by referring to

its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

before an agency submits a proposed

collection of information to OMB for

approval, it must first publish a

document in the Federal Register

providing a 60-day comment period and

otherwise consult with members of the

public and affected agencies concerning

each proposed collection of information.

The OMB has promulgated regulations

describing what must be included in

such a document. Under OMB's

regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an

agency must ask for public comment on

the following:

(i) Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(ii) The accuracy of the agency's

estimate of the burden of the proposed

collection of information, including thd

validity of the methodology and

assumptions used;

(iii) How to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected;

(iv) How to minimize the burden of

the collection of information on those

who are to respond, including the use

of appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology, e.g. permitting

electronic submission of responses.

In compliance with these

requirements, NHTSA asks for public

comments on the following proposed

collections of information:

Title: Tires and Rims Labeling.

OMB Control Number: 2127-0503.

Requested Expiration Date of

Approval: Three years from the

approval date.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Tire and rim

manufacturers.

Form Number: This collection of -

information uses no standard forms.

Abstract: Each tire manufacturer and

rim manufacturer must label their tire or

rim with the applicable safety

information. These labeling

requirements ensure that tires are mounted on the appropriate rims; and

that the rims and tires are mounted on

the vehicles for which they are

intended.

Estimated Annual Burden: 265,647

hours.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

2,274.

Comments are invited on: whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Department,

including whether the information will

have practical utility; the accuracy of

the Department's estimate of the burden

of the proposed information collection;

ways to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, includingthe use of

automated collection techniques or -

other forms of information technology.

Issued on: October 16, 2008.

Stephen R. Kratzke

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. E8-25158 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0103; Notice 2]

Chrysler, LLC, Grant of Petition for

Decision of Inconsequential

Noncompliance

Chrysler, LLC (Chrysler) has

determined that certain vehicles that it

manufactured during the period of

March 14, 2006 through March 20, 2008,

do not fully comply with paragraph S4.3

of 49 CFR 571.110 (Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.

110 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor

Vehicles With a GVWR of 4,536

Kilograms (10, 000 Peunds) or Less).

Chrysler has filed an appropriate report

pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and

Noncompliance Responsibility and

Reports.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and

30120(h) and the rule implementing

those provisions at 49 CFR part 556,

Chrysler has petitioned for an

exemption from the notification and

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 301 on the basis that this

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of

the petition was published, with a 30-

day public comment period', on June 5,

2008 in the Federal Register (73 FR

32076). No comments were received. To

view the petition and all supporting

documents log onto the Federal Docket

Management System Web site at:

http://www.regulations.gov/. Then

follow the online search instructions to

locate docket number "NHTSA-2008-

0103."

For further information on this

decision, contact Mr. John Finneran,

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA), telephone

(202) 366-0645, facsimile (202) 366-

7097.

Affected are approximately 1,886

model year 2007-2008 Jeep Wrangler

right-hand drive (RHD) multipurpose

passenger vehicles (MPV).

Paragraph 84.3 of 49 CFR 571.110

requires in pertinent part that:

S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete vehicle, shall show the

information specified in S4.3 (a) through (g),

and may show, at the manufacturer's option,

the information specified in S4.3 (h) and (i), on a placard permanently affixed to the

driver's side B-pillar. In each vehicle without a driver's side B-pillar and with two doors on the driver's side of the vehicle opening in

opposite directions, the placard shallobe

affixed on the forward edge of the rear side

door. If the above locations do not permit the

affixing of a placard that is legible, visible

and prominent, the placard shall be

permanently affixed to the rear edge of the

driver's side door. If this location does not

permit the affixing of a placard that is legible, visible and prominent, the placard shall be

affixed to the inward facing surface of the

vehicle next to the driver's seating position.

This information shall be in the English

language and conform in color and format,

not including the border surrounding the

entire placard, as shown in the example set

forth in Figure 1 in this standard. At the

manufacturer's option, the information

specified in S4.3 (c), (d), and, as appropriate,

(h) and (i) may be shown, alternatively to

being shown on the placard, on a tire

inflation pressure label which must conform

in color and format, not including the border

surrounding the entire label, as shown in the

example set forth in Figure 2 in this standard.

The label shall be permanently affixed and

proximate to the placard required by this

paragraph. The information specified in S4.3

(e) shall be shown on both the vehicle

placard and on the tire inflation pressure

label (if such a label is affixed to provide the

information specified in S4.3 (c), (d), and, as appropriate, (h) and (i)) and may be shown

in the format and color scheme set forth in

Figures 1 and 2.

Chrysler stated that the

noncompliance is that the required

placard was installed on the passenger's

side (left side) door on each of the

subject RHD vehicles, rather than on the

driver's side (right side) door.

Chrysler explains that the subject

vehicles were sold primarily for use by

rural postal carriers, since RHD makes it

easier for the carriers to access

mailboxes located along the right side of

the roadway. The relevant portion of

S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, entitled

"Placard," provides as follows: "Each

vehicle, except for a trailer or

incomplete vehicle, shall show the

information specified in S4.3(a) through (g) * * * on a placard permanently

63050
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / W dhesday; " October 22; 2008 / Notices

affixed to the driver's side B-pillar. In

each vehicle without a driver's side Bpillar and with two doors on the driver's

side of the vehicle opening in opposite

directions, the placard shall be affixed

on the forward edge of the rear side

door. If the above locations do not

permit the affixing of a placard that is

legible, visible and prominent, the

placard shall be permanently affixed to

the rear edge of the driver's side door."

Chrysler further explained that the

subject vehicles have placards that

contain all of the tire and vehicle

loading information required by the

various subsections of S4.3. However,

because of an inadvertent failure of the

assembly plant work instructions to

differentiate between RHD and left hand

drive (LHD) vehicles in this respect, the

placards were inadvertently affixed to

the rear edge of the door on the left

(passenger) side of the subject vehicles, as opposed to the driver's side door.

(Chrysler notes that the subject vehicles

do not have a B-pillar with a flat surface

that would permit the affixing of a

placard that is "legible, visible, and

prominent.")

Chrysler states its belief that the fact

that the placard required by paragraph

S4.3 of the standard was affixed to the

left hand door of these RHD vehiclesas opposed to the driver's side doorcreates absolutely no risk to motor

vehicle safety. All of the relevant tire

and loading information is set forth on

the placard, and therefore it is readily

available to vehicle operators. Moreover,

the placard is located at the place where

United States drivers are used to looking

for it.

Chrysler also states its belief that the

operators of the subject vehicles will

have almost certainly owned and driven

conventional LHD vehicles, so they will

have had experience in locating the tire

and load information on the left side of

their vehicles. And in the extremely

unlikely event that an owner has

difficulty locating the placard, the

owner's manual provided with the

subject vehicles shows the location of

the placard on the left side door.

Chrysler also makes reference to

several previous inconsequential

noncompliance grant decisions,

involving the omission of rim data on

tire labels, which in its opinion, are

similar to the instant one.

Chrysler also notes that it has not

received any consumer complaints

regarding an inability to locate the

placard or an unawareness of the

relevant tire and loading information.

In addition, Chrysler states that it has

corrected the problem that caused these

errors so that they will not be repeated

in future production and that it believes

that because the noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety

that no corrective action is warranted.

NHTSA Decision

By way of background, the

Transportation Recall, Enhancement,

Accountability, and Documentation

(TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 106-414)

required, among other things, that the

agency initiate rulemaking to improve

consumer awareness of tire inflation

pressure and load limit information. In

2001, as part of a proposed update to

FMVSS No. 110, NHTSA proposed in a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

that "A standard location for tire

information placards would contribute

to consumer awareness of recommended

tire inflation pressure and load limits by

providing a consistent and predictable

place for this information."' In the

subsequent final rule, the location

required for the consistent and

predictable location of the labeling

information is one of three locations

allowed on the driver's-side of the

vehicle.

NHTSA agmees with Chrysler that this

noncompliance will not have an adverse

effect on vehicle safety. In the agency's

judgment, most consumers in the

United States are accustomed to lefthand drive (LHD) vehicles, with tire

inflation pressure and load limit

information labeling located on the lefthand side of the vehicle. Not locating

the labeling on the driver's-side (righthand side) for the subject RHD vehicles

will not appreciably interfere with

customer awareness of recommended

tire inflation pressures and load limits.

The agency agrees with Chrysler's

statement that it is extremely unlikely

an owner will have difficulty locating

the placard in this case.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA has decided that Chrysler has

met its burden of persuasion that the

subject FMVSS No. 110 labeling

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,

Chrysler's petition is granted and the

petitioner is exempted from the

obligation of providing notification of,

and a remedy for, the subject

noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118

and 30120.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;

delegati6ns of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: October 16, 2008.

Daniel C. Smith,

Associate Administrator for Enforcement.

[FR Doc. E8-25138 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

1 See 66 FR 6555, December 19, 2001.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0088; Notice 2]

Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition

for Decision of Inconsequential

Noncompliance

Ford Motor Company (Ford), on

behalf of Jaguar and Land Rover, has

determined that an unknown number of

seat belt replacement assemblies for

model year 1981 through 2008 Jaguar

and Land Rover make passenger cars

and multi-purpose vehicles did not

comply with paragraphs S4.1(k) and

S4.1(1) of 49 CFR 571.209, Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)

No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The

assemblies were sold through January

24, 2008. Ford has filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,

Defect and Noncompliance

Responsibility and Reports.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and

30120(h) and the rule implementing

those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556,

Ford has petitioned for an exemption

from the notification and remedy

requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301

on the basis that this noncompliance is

.inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the petition was

published, with a 30-day public

comment period, on May 14, 2008 in the

Federal Register (73 FR 27889). No

comments were received. To view the

petition and all supporting documents

log onto the Federal Docket

Management System (FDMS) Web site

at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then

follow the online search instructions to

locate docket number "NHTSA-2008-

0088."

For further information on this

decision, contact Ms. Claudia Covell,

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the

National Highway Traffic Safety

-Administration (NHTSA), telephone

(202) 366-5293, facsimile (202) 366-

7002.

Paragraphs S4.1(k) and S4.1(1) of

FMVSS No. 209 require:

(k) Installation instructiens. A seat belt

assembly, other than a seat belt assembly'

installed in a motor vehicle by an automobile

manufacturer, shall be accompanied by an instruction sheet providing sufficient

information for installing the assembly in a motor vehicle. The installation instructions

shall state whether the assembly is for

universal installation or for installation only

in specifically stated motor vehicles, and

shall include at least those items specified in

SAE Recommended Practice J800c, "Motor

Vehicle Seat Belt Installations," November

1973. If the assembly is for use only in

specifically stated motor vehicles, the

63051
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

assembly shall either be permanently and

legibly marked or labeled with the following

statement, or the instruction sheet shall

include the following statement:

This seat belt assembly is for use only in

[insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front

right"] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and

model(s)].

(1) Usage and maintenance instructions. A

seat belt assembly or retractor shall be

accompanied by written instructions for the

proper use of the assembly, stressing

particularly the importance of wearing the

assembly snugly and properly located on the

body, and on the maintenance of the

assembly and periodic inspection of all

components. The instructions shall show the

proper manner of threading webbing in the

hardware of seat belt assemblies in which the

webbing is not permanently fastened.

Instructions for a nonlocking retractor shall

include a caution that the webbing must be

fully extended from the retractor during use

of the seat belt assembly unless the retractor

is attached to the free end of webbing which

is not subjected to any tension during

restraint of an occupant by the assembly.

Instructions for Type 2a shoulder belt shall

include a warning that the shoulder belt is

not to be used without a lap belt.

Ford's Data, Views, and Arguments

Ford explains that service seat belt

assemblies were sold for use in the

following vehicles in the United States

and federalized territories without the

installation, usage, and maintenance

instructions required by paragraphs in

$4.1(k) and 4.1(1) of FMVSS No. 209.

The model years that are affected are:

2001-2008 Model Year Jaguar X-Type.

1999-2008 Model Year Jaguar S-Type.

1982-2008 Model Year Jaguar XJ.

1997-2008 Model year Jaguar XK.

1981-1996 Model Year Jaguar XJS.

2002-2005 Model Year Land Rover

Freelander.

2008 Model Year Land Rover LR2.

1993-1997 Model Year Land Rover Defender.

1994-1999 Model Year Land Rover Discovery

Series I.

1999-2004 Model Year Land Rover Discovery

Series II.

2005-2008 Model Year Land Rover LR3.

1987-2008 Model Year Land Rover Range Rover.

2006-2008 Model Year Land Rover Range

Rover Sport.

Ford makes the argument that the

service seat belt assemblies in question

are only made available to Jaguar and

Land Rover authorized dealerships for

their use or subsequent resale and that

the Jaguar and Land Rover parts

ordering process used by its dealers

clearly identifies the correct service part

required by model year, model, and

seating position. By way of example,

Ford further explains that an order for

a driver's-side front buckle assembly for

a 2002 model year Range Rover would

be filled by the components specifically

designed to be installed in that

particular position in that specific

vehicle. Furthermore, Ford states that

Jaguar's and Land Rover's service seat

belt assemblies are designed to be

installed properly only in their intended

application.

Ford additionally states that

technicians at Jaguar and Land Rover

dealerships that replace seat belts have

access to the installation instruction

information available in workshop

manuals. Installers other than Jaguar

and Land Rover dealership technicians

also have seat belt installation

information available because most

workshop manual information,

including seat belt replacement

information, is made available to the

general public on the Jaguar and Land

Rover Global Technical Reference (GTR)

Web sites (http://

www.jaguartechinfo.com and http://

www.landrovertechinfo.com).

. Ford additionally argues that a

significant portion of paragraph S4.1(k)

appears to address a concern with

proper installation of aftermarket seat

belts into vehicles that were not

originally *equipped with these

restraints. Ford also notes that SAE

J800c which is cited in the regulation

involves installation of "universal type

seat belt assemblies," particularly where

no seat belt had previously been

installed, and that these concerns do not

apply to the service seat belts. The

vehicles involved in this petition have

uniquely designed seat belt components

and replacement seat belt assemblies are

installed into the identical location from

which the original parts were removed.

Ford also states that proper seat belt

usage instructions are clearly explained

in the Owner Handbook that is included

with each new vehicle. Information

concerning maintenance, periodic

inspection for wear and function of the

seat belts, as well as for their proper

usage is included in the Owner

Handbook and this information equally

applies to replacement seat belt

assemblies. Many Jaguar and Land

Rover Owner Handbooks are also

available to the public, free of charge on

the Jaguar and Land Rover GTR Web

sites.

.Ford is not aware of any customer or

field reports of service seat belt

assemblies being incorrectly installed in

the subject applications as a result of

installation instructions not

accompanying the service part. Ford

also is not aware of any reports

requesting installation instructions.

Ford also informed NHTSA that it has

corrected the problem that caused these

errors so that they will not be repeated

in future production.

In summation, Ford states that it has

corrected the problem that caused these

errors so that they will not be repeated

in future production and that it believes

that because the noncompliances are

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety

that no corrective action is warranted.

NHTSA Decision

To help ensure proper selection,

installation, usage, and maintenance of

seat belt assemblies, paragraph S4.1(k)

of FMVSS No. 209 requires that

installation, usage, and maintenance

instructions be provided with seat belt

assemblies, other than those installed by

an automobile manufacturer.

First, we note that the subject seat belt

assemblies are only made available to

Jaguar and Land Rover authorized

dealerships for their use or subsequent

resale. Because the parts ordering

process used by Ford authorized

dealerships clearly identifies the correct

service part required by model year,

model, and seating position, NHTSA

believes that there is little likelihood

that an inappropriate seat belt assembly

will be provided for a specific seating

position within a Ford vehicle.

Second, we note that technicians at

Jaguar and Land Rover dealerships have

access to the seat belt assembly

installation instruction information in

workshop manuals. In addition,

installers other than Jaguar and Land

Rover dealership technicians can access

the installation instructions on the

Jaguar and Land Rover GTR Web sites

and through other aftermarket service

information compilers. We also believe

that Ford is correct in stating that the

seat belt assemblies are designed to be

installed properly only in their intended

application. Thus, we conclude that

sufficient safeguards are in place to

prevent the installation of an improper

seat belt assembly.

NHTSA recognizes the importance of

having installation instructions

available to installers and use and

maintenance instructions available to

consumers. The risk created by this

noncompliance is that someone who

purchased an assembly is unable to

obtain the necessary installation

information resulting in an incorrectly

installed seat belt assembly. However,

because the seat belt assemblies are

designed to be installed properly only in

their intended application and the

installation information is widely

available to the public, it appears that

there is little likelihood that installers

will not be able to access the installation

instructions. Furthermore, we note that

Ford has stated that they are not aware

of any customer field reports of service

seat belt assemblies being incorrectly

63052
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205 /Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

installed in the subject applications, nor

aware of any reports requesting

installation instructions. These findings

suggest that it is unlikely that seat belts

have been improperly installed. . In addition, although 49 CFR 571.209

paragraph S4.1(k) requires certain

instructions specified in SAE

Recommended Practjce J800c be

included in seat belt replacement

instructions, that requirement applies to

seat belts intended to be installed in

seating positions where seat belts do not

already exist. The subject seat belt

assemblies are only intended to be used

for replacement of original equipment

seat belts, therefore the instructions do

not apply to the subject seat belt

assemblies.1

With respect to seat belt usage and

inspection instructions, we note that

this information is available in the

Owner Handbooks that are included

with each new vehicle as well as free of

charge on the Jaguar and Land Rover

GTR Web sites and apply to the

replacement seat belt assemblies

installed in these vehicles. Thus, with

respect to usage and maintenance

instructions, it appears that Ford has

met the intent of 84.1(1) of FMVSS No.

209 for the subject vehicles using

alternate methods for notification.

NHTSA has granted similar petitions

for noncompliance with seat belt

assembly installation and usage

instruction standards. Refer to Subaru of

America, Inc. (65 FR 67471, November

9, 2000); Bombardier Motor Corporation

of America, Inc. (65 FR 60238, October

10, 2000); TRW, Inc. (58 FR 7171,

February 4, 1993); and Chrysler

Corporation, (57 FR 45865, October 5,

1992). In all of these cases, the

petitioners demonstrated that the

noncompliant seat belt assemblies were

properly installed, and due to their

respective replacement parts ordering

systems, improper replacement seat belt

assembly selection and installation

would not be likely to occur. In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA has decided that Ford has met

'its burden of persuasion that the seatbelt

installation and usage instruction

noncompliances described are

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Accordingly, Ford's application is

granted, and it is exempted from

providing the notification of

noncompliance that is required by 49

U.S.C. 30118, and from remedying the

noncompliance, as required by 49

U.S.C. 30120. All products

manufactured or sold on and after

1Subaru of America, Inc.; Grant of Application

for Decision of Inconsequential Non-Compliance

(65 FR 67472).

January 24, 2008, must comply fully

with the requirements of FMVSS No.

209.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: October 16, 2008.

Daniel C. Smith,

Associate Administrator for Enforcement.

[FR Doc. E8-25133 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 4910-59-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB-290 (Sub-No. 305X)]

Norfolk Southern Railway CompanyAbandonment Exemption-in

Somerset County, PA

On October 2, 2008, Norfolk Southern

Railway Company (NSR) filed with the

Surface Transportation Board a petition

under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption

from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903

to abandon a 1.80-mile line of railroad

known as the South Fork Industrial

Track, extending between milepost QS

14.40 and milepost QS 16.20 in

Somerset County, PA. The line traverses

U.S. Postal Service Zip Code 15963 and

includes the stations of Scalp Level,

Shade Creek, and Windber Jct.

In addition to an exemption from the

prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C.

10903, NSR seeks exemption from 49

U.S.C. 10904 [offer of financial

assistance procedures] and 49 U.S.C.

10905 [public use conditions]. In

support, NSR states that, following

abandonment, it proposes to convey the

line intact to Rosebud Mining Company

for continued use in its coal mining

operations as a private track. This

request will be addressed in the final

decision.

The line does not contain federally

granted rights-of-way. Any

documentation in NSR's possession will

be made available promptly to those

requesting it.

The interest of railroad employees

will be protected by the conditions set

forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.-

Abandonment-Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91

(1979).

By issuing this notice, the Board is

instituting an exemption proceeding

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final

decision will be issued by January 16,.

2009.

Any offer of financial assistance

-(OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will

be due no later than 10 days after

service of a decision granting the

petition for exemption. Each OFA must

be accompanied by a $1,500 filing fee.

See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).1

All interested persons should be

aware that, following abandonment of

rail service and salvage of the line, the

line may be suitable for other public

use, including interim trail use. Any

request for a public use condition under

49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail

banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be

due no later than November 12, 2008.

Each trail use request must be

accompanied by a $200 filing fee. See 49

CFR 1002.2(f)(27).

All filings in response to this notice

must refer to STB Docket No. AB-290

(Sub-No. 305X), and must be sent to: (1)

Surface Transportation Board, 395 E

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-

0001; and (2) John M. Scheib, General

Attorney, Norfolk Southern Corporation,

Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA

23510. Replies to NSR's petition are due

on or before November 12, 2008.

Persons seeking further information

concerning abandonment procedures

may contact the Board's Office of Public

Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and

Compliance at (202) 245-0238 or refer

to the full abandonment or

discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR

part 1152. Questions concerning

environmental issues may be directed to

the Board's Section of Environmental

Analysis (SEA) at (202) 245-0305.

Assistance for the hearing impaired is

available through the Federal

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-

800-877-8339.

An environmental assessment (EA) (or

environmental impact statement (EIS), if

necessary) prepared by SEA will be

served upon all parties of record and

upon any agencies or other persons who

commented during its preparation.

Other interested persons may contact

SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS).

EAs in these abandonment proceedings

normally will be made available within

60 days of the filing of the petition. The

deadline for submission of comments on

the EA will generally be within 30 days

of its service.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our Web site at http://

www.stb.dot.gov.

Decided: October 14, 2008.

I Effective July 18, 2008, the filing fee for an OFA

increased to $1,500. See Regulations Governing

Fees for Services Performed in Connection with

Licensing and Related Services-2008 update, STB

Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 15) (STB served June 18,

2008).

63053
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205 /Wednesday, October 22, 2008 /Notices

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Anne K. Quinlan,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-25025 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

Voluntary Dissolution

AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision

(OTS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, invites the general public and

other Federal agencies to comment on

proposed and continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44

U.S.C. 3507. The Office of Thrift

Supervision within the Department of

the Treasury will submit the proposed

information collection requirement

described below to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act. Today, OTS is soliciting

public comments on its proposal to

extend this information collection.

DATES: Submit written comments on or

before December 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, referring to

the collection by title of the proposal or

by OMB approval number, to

Information Collection Comments, Chief

Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift

Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20552; send a facsimile

transmission to (202) 906-6518; or send

an e-mail to

infocollection.comments@ots.treas.gov.

OTS will post comments and the related

index on the OTS Internet site at http://

www.ots.treas.gov. In addition,

interested persons may inspect

comments at the Public Reading Room,

1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To

make an appointment, call (202) 906-

5922, send an e-mail to

public.info@ots.treas.gov, or send a

fadsimile transmission to (202) 906-

7755.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You

can request additional information

about this proposed information

collection from Patricia D. Goings (202)

906-5668, Office of Thrift Supervision,

1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC

20552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OTS may

not conduct or sponsor an information

collection, and respondents are not

required to respond to an information

collection, unless the information

collection displays a currently valid

OMB control number. As part of the

approval process, we invite comments

on the following information collection.

Comments should address one or

more of the following points:

a. Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of OTS;

b. The accuracy of OTS's estimate of

the burden of the proposed information

collection;

c. Ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of the

information collection on respondents,

including through the use of

information technology.

We will summarize the comments

that we receive and include them in the

OTS request for OMB approval. All

comments will become a matter of

public record. In this notice, OTS is

soliciting comments concerning the

following information collection.

Title of Proposal: Voluntary

Dissolution.

OMB Number: 1550-0066.

Form Numbers: N/A.

Regulation Requirement: 12 CFR part

546.

Description: Pursuant to 12 CFR

546.4, a Federal savings association's

board of directors may propose a plan

for dissolution of the association by

submitting a statement listing the

reasons and a plan of dissolution to the

OTS. A plan of dissolution may be

denied or recommendations to the plan

may be made by OTS if it believes the

plan is inadvisable and not in the best

interests of all concerned.

Notice letters are sent to each

depositor of the institution's intent to

dissolve.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other

for-profit..

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.

Estimated Number of Responses: 3.

Estimated Frequency of Response:

Other; as applied for.

Estimated Total Burden: 3,350 hours. C

Clearance Officer: Ira L. Mills, (202)

906-6531, Office of Thrift Supervision,

1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC

20552.

Dated: October 16, 2008.

Deborah Dakin,

Senior Deputy Chief Counsel, Regulations and

Legislation Division.

[FR Doc. E8-25092 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

Recordkeeplng and Confirmation

Requirements for Securities

Transactions

AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision

(OTS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

SUMMARY: The proposed information

collection request (ICR) described below

has been submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review -and approval, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OTS

is soliciting public comments on the

proposal.

DATES: Submit written comments on or

before November 21, 2008. A copy of

this ICR, with applicable supporting

documentation, can be obtained from

Reglnfo.gov at http://www.reginfo.govl

public/do/PRAMain.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, referring to

the collection by title of the proposal or

by OMB approval number, to OMB and

OTS at these addresses: Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attention: Desk Officer for OTS, U.S.

Office of Management and Budget,

725-17th Street, NW., Room 10235,

Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to

(202) 395-6974; and Information

Collection Comments, Chief Counsel's

Office, Office of Thrift Supervision,

1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC

20552, by fax to (202) 906-6518, or by

e-mail to

infocollection.comments@ots.treas.gov.

OTS will post comments and the related

index on the OTS Internet site at

http://www.ots.treas.gov. In addition,

interested persons may inspect

comments at the Public Reading Room,

1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To

make an-appointment, call (202) 906-

5922, send an e-mail to

public.info@ots.treas.gov, or send a

facsimile transmission to (202) 906-

7755.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For -

further information or to obtain a copy

of the submission to OMB, please

contact Ira L. Mills at

ira.mills@ots.treas.gov, (202) 906-6531,

or facsimile number (202) 906-6518,

Regulations and Legislation Division,

Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift

63054
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Notices

Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OTS may

not conduct or sponsor an information

collection, and respondents are not

required to respond to an information

collection, unless the information

collection displays a currently valid

OMB control number. As part of the

approval process, we invite comments

on the following information collection.

Title of Proposal: Recordkeeping and

Confirmation Requirements for

Securities Transactions.

OMB Number: 1550-0109.

Form Number: N/A.

Description: The regulation found at

12 CFR Part 551 imposes recordkeeping

and confirmation requirements for

savings associations that effect

securities transactions. The

recordkeeping and confirmation

regulation ensures that savings

association customers receive the same

protections and disclosures proVided to

brokerage customers; ensures savings

associations effect secuiities

transactions safely and soundly; and

provides savings associations with

formal guidance when they effect

securities transactions.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Number of Responses: 829.

Estimated Burden Hours per

Response: 1 hour each for

recordkeeping, confirmation and reports

by officers and employees; 2 hours for

updating policies; and 10 hours for new

written policies.

Estimated Frequency of Response: On

occasion.

Estimated Total Burden: 4,235 hours.

Clearance Officer: Ira L. Mills, (202)

906-6531, Office of Thrift Supervision,

1700 G Street, NW, Washington, DC

20552.

Dated: October 16, 2008.

Deborah Dakin,

Senior Deputy Chief Counsel, Regulations and

Legislation Division.

[FR Doc. E8-25093 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720-01-P

63055

Reader Aids Federal Register

Vol. 73, No. 205

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations

General Information, indexes and other finding 202-741-6000

aids

Laws 741-6000

Presidential Documents

Executive orders and proclamations 741-6000

The United States Government Manual 741-6000

Other Services

Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741-6020

Privacy Act Compilation 741-6064

Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741-6043

TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741-6086

ELECTRONIC RESEARCH

World Wide Web

Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications

is located at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html

Federal Register information and research tools, including Public

Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at:

http://www.archives.gov/federal register

E-mail

FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is

an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital

form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form

of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and

PDF links to the full text of each document.

To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select

Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list

(or change settings); then follow the instructions.

PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail

service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws.

To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html

and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow

the instructions.

FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot

respond to specific inquiries.

Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the

Federal Register system to: fedreg.info@nara.gov

The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or

regulations.

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, OCTOBER

56935-57234 ...................... 1

57235-57474 ...................... 2

57475-58018 ......................... a

58019-58434 ...................... 6

58435-58866 ...................... 7

58867-59478 ...................... 8

59479-60094 ...................... 9

60095-60602 .................... 10

60603-60934 .................... 14

60935-61324 .................... 15

61325-61648 .................... 16

61649-62186 .................... 17

62187-62434 .................... 20

62435-62846 .................... 21

62847-63056 .................... 22

CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING OCTOBER

At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register

publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which

lists parts and sections affected by documents published since

the revision date of each title.

3 CFR

Proclamations:

8294 ................................. 57223

8295 ................................. 57233

8296 ..................... 57475,60609

8297 ................................. 58429

8298 ................................ 58431

8299 ................................. 58433

8300 ................................. 58861

8301 ................................. 58863

8302 ................................. 58867

8303 ................................. 60603

8304 ................................. 61649

8305 ................................. 61651

8306 ................................. 61653

8307 ................................. 61655

8308 ................................. 62435

8309 ................................. 62437

Executive Orders:

12962 (amended by

13474) .......................... 57229

13176 (Superseded by

13476) .......................... 60605

13474 ............................... 57229

EO 12139 (amended

by EO 13475) ............... 60095

EO 12949 (amended

by EO 13475) ............... 60095

EO 13475 ........................ 60095

13476 ............................... 60605

Administrative Orders:

Memorandums:

Memorandum of April

17,2006

(superseded by

Memorandum of

October 17, 2008) ........ 62845

Memorandum of

October 3, 2008

(supersedes

Memorandum of

December 20,

2005) ............................ 58869

Memorandum of

October 17, 2008 ......... 62845

Notices:

Notice of October 16,

2008 ............................. 62433

Presidential

Determinations:

PD 2008-29 of

September 30,

2008 ............................. 58865

2009-1 .............................. 60935

2009-2 .............................. 60937

Presidential

Determination No.

2009-3 of October 9,

2008 ............................. 62847

Presidential

Determination No.

2009-4 of October

15,2008 ....................... 62849

4 CFR

22 ................................

60609

5 CFR

295 ...............................

58019

315 ...............................60611

316 ...............................

60611

9701 ...............................

58435

9901 ...............................58435

Proposed Rules:

532 ...............................

58506

6 CFR

Proposed Rules:

5 .................................

62214

7 CFR

205 ................................

59479

331 ...............................61325

984 ...............................

57485

1260 ...............................

60097

Proposed Rules:

340 ................................60008

800 ................................

62446

810 ................................

62446

946 ................................62215

966 .................. * ................ 62218

1703 ...............................

61198

1780 ...............................61198

3570 ...............................

61198

4280 ...............................

61198

4284 ...............................61198

5002 ...............................61198

8 CFR

100 ................. 58023

212 ................................58023

214 ............. .... 61332

248 ................. 61332

9 CFR

77 ................................60099

121 .................. : ................ 61325

149 ................. 60464

160 ................................60464

161 ................................

60464

201 ................................62439

10 CFR

50 ......................... 57235,60612

431 ................................

58772

Proposed Rules:

2 ..................................62931

35 ............... : ..................... 58063

50 .................................62220

51 ............ 59540,59547,59551

430 ........... 62034, 62134

431 ................. 62034

11 CFR

Proposed Rules:

100 ................................

62224
ii Federal Register / Vol. 73, No,. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 /Reader Aids

101 ................................... 62224 71 ........... 58512, 58513,61749, .20 CFR 210 ...............................

58875

102 ................. 62224 61750,61752,62940 501 ................. 62190 260 ................. 58467

104 .................................. 62224 91 .................. 57270 938 ................. 60944

110 ................................... 62224 93 ..................................... 60996 21 CFR 950...............................

57538

113 ................................... 62224 203 ................................... 59496

116 ................................... 62224 15 CFR 205 ................................... 59496

400 ................................... 62224 303 ................................... 62880 522 ....... ...... 58871, 58872 30 ................................

62205

9001 ................................. 62224 730 ................................... 56964 558 ................................... 58873

9003 ................ ...62224 732 ....................... 56964,57495 801 ................................... 58874 32 CFR

9031 ................................. 62224 734 ....................... 56964, 57495 112 ...............................

59501

9033 ................................. 62224 736 ................................... 56964 22 CFR 199 ...............................

59504

9035 ................................. 62224 738 ................................... 57495 7 ................... ...... .62196 212 ...............................

59505

740 ....................... 57495,60910 40 ..................................... 62197 706 ...............................

60947

12 CFR 742 ....................... 57495,58033 50 ..................................... 62196 750 ...............................

60948

201 ................................... 61657 744 ....................... 57495, 58033 126 ................................... 58041 751 ...............................

60949

204 ....................... 57488, 59482 746 ................................... 57495 756 .............................. 60949

225 ................................... 62851 748 ................................... 57495 23 CFR 757 ................. 60950

263 ................................... 58031 750 ................................... 57495 -Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules:

330 ................................... 61658 762 ....................... 56964, 57495 620 .............. : .................... 58908 288 ...............................

59579

721 ................................... 62854 770 ................................... 57495 635 .................. 58908 325 ...............................

59582

740 ....................... 56935, 62856 772 ....................... 57495, 60910 636 ...... * . .......... ...... 58908 553 .......... .. 57017

745 ....................... 60616, 62856 774 ......... 56964, 57495, 58033, 710 ................................... 58908 1702......... . ..61771

792 ................................... 56936 60910 1703 ..............................

6177 2

951 ................................... 61660 Proposed Rules: 24 CFR 1703 ................61772

1291 ................................. 61660 740 ................................... 57554 25 ..................................... 60538 33 CFR

Proposed Rules: 772 ................. 57554 990 .......... ...................... 61350 100 ...........57242,60629

327 ................................... 61560 16 CFR 4001 ................................ 58418 105 ....................... 60951

701 ................................... 57013 Proposed Rules: 110 ....................... 57244,60629

740 ................................... 62935 1610 ............... 62187 30 ................. 61754 117. 58473,60629,60952,

742 .................................. 57013 Proposed Rules: 570 ................. 61757 609,60954

1202 ................................. 60192 3 ....................................... 58832 60953,60954

1250 ................................. 60198 4 ....................................... 5883 2 25 CFR 147 ...............................

60629

1773 ................................. 60198 1500 ................................. 58063 542 ................................... 60492 165 .......... 59509,59511,60629

543 ................................... 60492 Proposed Rules:

13 CFR 17 CIFIR 547 ................................... 60508 117 ....................... 58070, 62450

101 .................................. 61665 30 ................. 60625 ProposeSl Rules: 165 ................. 62235

121.: ..................... 56940,61336 143 ................................... 57512 502 ................................... 60490 34 CFR

124 ................................... 57490 190 ................................... 57235 546 ................................... 60490

125 ....................... 56940,61336 229 ................................... 57237 5b ................................

61354

127 ....................... 56940,61336 230 ....................... 58300,60050 26 CFR 36 CFR

134 ....................... 56940, 61336 231 ................................... 60050 1 ............. 58438, 59501, 62199,

300 ................................... 62858 232 ................................... 60050 62203, 62204 211 ...............................

62443

301 ................................... 62858 239 ....................... 58300,60050 54 .................................... 62410 294 ...............................

61456

302 .................62858 240 ......... 58300,60050, 61666, 801 ................................... 60627 1228 ..............................

57245

303 ................................... 62858 61678 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules:

305 ................................... 62858 241 ...........60050,1 .............. 58514,59575,61770 7 .............................. .59585

307 ................................... 242 .......... 61690,61690, 61706 54 ..................................... 60208

308 ......................... 62858 62858 249 P o .......... o e 58300,60050,61678 u e 37 CFR

310 

314 

................................... 

................................... 62858 Proposed Rules: 27 CFR 10 ................................

59513

315 ................................... 62858 230 ................................... 61753 447 ................................... 57239 Proposed Rules:

Proposed Rules: 

62858 240 ................................... 61753 478 ................................... 57239 201 ....................... 58073,60658 18 CFR 479 ................................... 57239 385 .............................. 57033

121 ....................... 57014,61369 35 ..................................... 57515 ............. ...... 57239 38 

125 ....................... 57014,61369 41 ..................................... 58720 28 CFR 38CFR

127 ....................... 57014, 61369 131 ................................... 57515 58 ..................................... 58438 17 ......................... 58875,58877

134 ....................... 57014, 61369 141 ................................... 58720 570 ................................... 62440 17............ 58877

14 CFR 154 ................................... 57515 59 ................. 58877

157 ................................... 57515 29 CFR Proposed Rules:

33 ..................................... 57235 250 ................................... 57515 40 3 ................................... 57412 5 .................................

62004

36 ..................................... 62871 281 ................. 57515 2509 ........ 58445, 61731, 61734 39CFR

39 ........... 56956, 56958, 56960, 284 ................................... 57515 2550 ........ 58447, 58450, 58459

58032,58436,59486,59488, 300 ................................... 57515 2578............... 58549 111 ...............................

61355

59491, 59493, 60102, 61336, 301 ................................... 60105 2590 ................................. 62410 3020 ........ 59514, 62184, 62886

61342, 61343, 61346, 62872 341 ................................... 57515 4022 ................................. 61352 40 CFR

71 ........... 58871, 60622, 60939, 344 ................ 57515 4044 ................ 61352

60940, 62876,62878, 62879 346 ................................... 57515 Proposed Rules: 3 .................................

61737

91 ..................................... 62871 347 ................................... 57515 3 ....................................... 62229 9 .................................

59034

93 ............ 60544, 60574 348 ................................... 57515 5........................ 62229 49 ................................

61740

97 ........... 59494, 60623, 60942, 375 ................ 57515 1910.... ............................ 62942 50 ........................ 58042

61348 385 ....................... 57515, 62881 1926 ..................... 59714, 62942 52 ........... 56970, 57246,58475,

Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 2550 ................................. 60657 59518,60955,60957,61357,

39 ........... 58507,58509,58901, 40 ..................................... 62229 2590 ................................. 60208 62889, 62891, 62893, 62897,

.58903, 58906,59571,59573, 806 ................................... 57271 2700 ................................. 62449 62902

60201,60203,60206,60657, 55 ................................

62907

61369, 61372,61375,61378, 19 CFR 30 CFR 59 .............................

58481

61747, 62447, 62937 4 .................. 60943 203 ................. 58467 60 ................. 59034
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday? October 22, 2008 / Reader Aids - iii

62 ...................................... 56981

80 ............ 57248, 59034, 61358

81.... ................................ 56983

85 ..................................... 59034

86 ..................................... 59034

89 ..................................... 59034

90 ..................................... 59034

91 ..................................... 59034

92 ..................................... 59034

94 .................. 59034 180 ......... 56995,58880,60151,

60963,60969

197 ................................... 61256

261 ................................... 59523

1027 ................................ 59034

1033 ................................. 59034

1039 ................................. 59034

1042 ................................. 59034

1045 .......... : ...................... 59034

1048 ................................. 59034

1051 ..................... 59034,62444

1054 ................................. 59034

1060 ................................. 59034

1065 ................................. 59034

1068 ................ 59034

1074 ........ : ........................ 59034

Proposed Rules:

3 .................. 61773

50 ..................................... 58080

51 ..................................... 58080

52 ........... 57272,58084, 58515,

58913, 59586, 60996, 61381,

62945

60................................... 59956

61 ..................................... 59956

63 ........... 58352, 59956, 60432,

62384

80 .................................... 57274

158 ....................... 59382,60211

161 ....................... 59382,60211

180 ................................... 57040

228 ................................... 60662

262 ................................... 58388

264 ................. 58388

265 ................................... 58388

266 ................................... 58388 12 ..................................... 59537 176 ................................

57001

271 ................. 58388 25 .................. 56999 178 ................. 57001

52 ..................................... 60172 179.. ........... .... 57001

42 CFR 64 ..................................... 60172 180 ................. 57001

9 .................. 60410 73 ........... 56999,57268,57551, 192 .............................. 62148

34 ....................... 58047, 62210 57552, 60631, 60974, 60975, 232 ....... .......... 61512

73 ..................................... 61363 60976 54 1 ....... ......................... 60633

100 ................................... 59528 76 ..................................... 61742 571............... .... 58887, 62744

411 ................................... 5754 1 90 ..................................... 60631

412 ................................... 57541 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules:

413 ........... 56998, 57541 Ch. 1 ............... 59586 109 ................. 57281

422 ................................... 575 1................... 60997 571 ................................

57297

44 1 ................................... 57854 27 ..................................... 57750 830 ................................

58520

447 ................................... 58491 43 ..................................... 60997

489 ................................... 57541 73 ........... 57280, 60670, 60671, 50 CFR

62237,62238,62239

43CFR 90 ..................................... 57750 17............ 61936, 62816

11 ..................................... 57259 400 ................................... 57567 21 .................................

59448

46 ..................................... 61292 22 ....... .............. 59448

Proposed Rules: 48 CFR 216 ................................

60976

403 ................................... 58085 215 ................................... 62211 222 ....................... 57010,60638

2300 ................................. 60212 252 ................................... 62211 223 ....................... 57010,60638

8360 ................................. 57564 Proposed Rules: 224 ....................... 60173, 62919

204 ................. 62239 229 ............................... 60640

44CFR 217 ................................... 62239 300 ................................

62444

64 ..................................... 60158 501 ................................... 57580 622 ....................... 58058,58059

65 ..................................... 60159 504 ................................... 59589 648 ......... 58497, 58498, 58898,

67 ..................................... 60162 511 ................................... 59590 60986, 62445

Proposed Rules: 514 ................................... 60224 660 ......... 58499,60191,60642,

67 ..................................... 60216 515 ................................... 57580 60987

45 532 ................................... 58515 679 ......... 57011,57553,58061,

CFR 552 ......... 57580,58515,59589, 58503,58504,58899,59538,

144 ................................... 62410 59590, 60224 60994,61366, 61367, 62212

146 ................................... 62410 553 ................................... 60224 697 ...............................

58059

148 ................................... 62410 1633 ................................. 58886

Proposed Rules: 2133 ................................. 58886 Proposed Rules: 144 ...................... ...60208 17.......57314, 58922, 61007,

146 ................................... 60208 49 CFR 62450, 62592

148 ................................... 60208 1 ........................... 57268,59538 216........... 60754, 60836

40 ..................................... 62910 226 ....................... 57583, 58527

46 CFR 89 ..................................... 57268 224 ................................

62459

393 ................. 59530 171 ................. 57001 226 ...... : ............................ 62459

172 ....................... 57001, 57008 622 ................................

61015

47 CFR 173 ................................... 57001 679 ....................... 57585,62241

0 ....................................... 57543 175 ................................... 57001 697 ................................

58099
iv Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Reader Aids

REMINDERS

The items in this list were

editorially compiled as an aid

to Federal Register users.

Inclusion or exclusion from

this list has no legal

significance.

RULES GOING INTO

EFFECT OCTOBER 22,

2008

COMMERCE DEPARTMENT

Economic Development

Administration

Revisions to the EDA

Regulations; published 10-

22-08

FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Commercial Mobile Alert

System; published 9-22-08

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION

ADMINISTRATION

Display of Official Sign:

Temporary Increase in

Standard Maximum Share

Insurance Amount;

Coverage for Custodial

Loan Accounts; published

10-22-08

POSTAL REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Administrative Practice and

Procedure:

Postal Service; published

10-22-08

TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT

Federal Aviation

Administration

Airworthiness Directives:

Hawker Beechcraft

Corporation Model

BAe.125 Series 800A

(including C 29A and U125) Airplanes, and

Hawker Beechcraft Model

Hawker 800XP Airplanes;

published 10-7-08

TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT

National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards:

Electronic Stability Control

Systems; Controls and

Displays; published 9-22-

08

COMMENTS DUE NEXT

WEEK

AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT

Agricultural Marketing

Service

Domestic Dates Produced or

Packed in Riverside County,

CA; Decreased Assessment

Rate; comments doe by 10-

27-08; published 8-26-08

[FR E8-19697]

Dried Prunes Produced in

California; Decreased

Assessment Rate;

comments due by 10-27-08;

published 8-26-08 IFR E8-

19695]

AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT

Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service

Importation of Grapes from

Chile Under a Systems

Approach; comments due by

10-27-08; published 8-27-08

[FR E8-19875]

Importation of Sweet Oranges

and Grapefruit from Chile;

comments due by 10-27-08;

published 8-28-08 [FR E8-

19871]

AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT

Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension

Service

Competitive and

Noncompetitive Non-formula

Grant Programs:

General Grant Administrative

Provisions and ProgramSpecific Administrative

Provisions for the

Specialty Crop Research

Initiative; Correction;

comments due by 10-30-

08; published 9-5-08 [FR

E8-20562]

Meetings:

Solicitation of Input from

Stakeholders Regarding

Programs for HispanicServing Agricultural

Colleges and Universities;

comments due by 10-27-

08; published 9-24-08 [FR

E8-2241 8]

AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT

Revision of Delegation of

Authority; comments due by

10-30-08; published .9-30-08

[FR E8-22959]

COMMERCE DEPARTMENT

Industry and Security

Bureau

National Defense Stockpile

Market Impact Committee;

Request for Public

Comments:

Potential Market Impact of

Proposed Stockpile

Disposals for Fiscal Year

2010; comments due by

10-30-08; published 9-30-

08 [FR E8-22734]

COMMERCE DEPARTMENT

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Characterization of the West

Coast Deep-set Longline

Fishery Operating Outside

of the U.S. Exclusive

Economic Zone; comments

due by 10-29-08; published

9-29-08 [FR E8-22818]

Conducting Consultations

Pursuant to Section 304(d)

of the National Marine

Sanctuaries Act; comments

due by 10-31-08; published

8-26-08 [FR E8-19662]

Fisheries of the Exclusive

Economic Zone Off Alaska:

Atka Mackerel in the Bering

Sea and Aleutian Islands

Management Area;

comments due by 10-31-

08; published 10-16-08

[FR E8-24585]

Pollock in Statistical Area

610 of the Gulf of Alaska;

comments due by 10-31-

08; published 10-16-08

[FR E8-24584]

Small Takes of Marine

Mammals Incidental to

Specified Activities; Seabird

and Pinniped Research

Activities in Central

California; comments due by

10-29-08; published 9-29-08

[FR E8-22819]

ENERGY DEPARTMENT

Energy Conservation Program:

Test Procedures for Battery

Chargers and External

Power Supplies and for

Multiple-Voltage External

Power Supplies;

comments due by 10-29-

08; published 8-15-08 [FR

E8-18576]

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Antimicrobial Registration

Review Final Work Plans

and Proposed Registration

Review Decisions;

Availability:

Sodium Hydroxide (Mineral

Bases, Strong) and Capric

(Decanoic) Acid;

comments due by 10-28-

08; published 8-29-08 [FR

E8-20152]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans:

Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Program,

Nevada; comments due

by 10-27-08; published 9-

25-08 [FR E8-22557]

Cyprodinil; Pesticide

Tolerances; comments due

by 10-27-08; published 8-

27-08 [FR E8-19747]

Environmental Statements;

Notice of Intent:

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution

Control Programs; States

and TerritoriesFlorida and South

Carolina; Open for

comments until further

notice; published 2-11-

08 [FR 08-00596]

Exemption from the

Requirement of a Tolerance:

Bacillus subtilis GB03;

comments due by 10-27-

08; published 8-27-08 [FR

E8-19860]

Pesticide Tolerances:

Dichlobenil; comments due

by 10-27-08; published 8-

27-08 [FR E8-19859]

Fenbuconazole; comments

due by 10-27-08;

published 8-27-08 [FR E8-

19858]

State Hazardous Waste

Management Program

Revision:

Idaho; comments due by

10-30-08; published 9-30-

08 [FR E8-22800]

FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection

Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals;

comments due by 10-27-08;

published 8-28-08 [FR E8-

2001-1]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT

INSURANCE CORPORATION

Minimum Capital Ratios;

Capital Adequacy

Guidelines; Capital

Maintenance; Capital:

Special. Committee 215

Aeronautical Mobile

-Satellite (Route) Services

Next Generation Satellite

Services -and Equipment;

comments due by 10-30-

08; published 9-30-08 [FR

E8-22741 ]

Risk-Based Capital Guidelines;

Capital Adequacy

Guidelines:

Standardized Framework;

comments due by 10-27-

08; published 7-29-08 [FR

E8-16262]

FEDERAL HOUSING.

FINANCING AGENCY

.Golden Parachute Payments

and Indemnification

Payments; comments due

by 10-31-08; published 9-

16-08 [FR E8-21650]

FEDERAL RESERVE

SYSTEM

Minimum Capital Ratios;

Capital Adequacy

Guidelines; Capital

Maintenance; Capital:

Special Committee 215

Aeronautical Mobile

Satellite (Route) Services

Next Generation Satellite

Services and Equipment;

comments due by 10-30-
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 205/Wednesday, October 22, 2008/Reader Aids V

08; published 9-30-08 [FR

E8-22741 ]

Risk-Based Capital Guidelines;

.Capital Adequacy

Guidelines:

Standardized Framework;

comments due by 10-27-

08; published 7-29-08 [FR

E8-16262]

Risk-Based Capital Guidelines;

Leverage Capital Guidelines;

comments due by 10-31-08;

published 9-26-08 [FR E8-

22702]

Transactions Between Member

Banks and Their Affiliates:

Exemption for Certain

Purchases of AssetBacked Commercial Paper

by a Member Bank from

an Affiliate; comments

due by 10-31-08;

published 9-26-08 [FR E8-

227011

HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Food and Drug

Administration

New Animal Drugs;

Cephalosporin Drugs;

Extralabel Animal Drug Use:

Order of Prohibition;

Extension of Comment

Period; Delay of Effective

Date of Final Rule;

comments due by 11-1-

08; published 8-18-08 [FR

E8-18967]

HOMELAND SECURITY

DEPARTMENT

Coast Guard

Drawbridge Operation

Regulations:

Shrewsbury River, Route 36

Bridge, Highlands, NJ,-

Schedule Change;

comments due by 11-1-

08; published 8-8-08 [FR

E8-18312]

Special Local Regulations for

Marine Events:

Spa Creek, Annapolis, MD;

comments due by 10-29-

08; published 9-29-08 [FR

E8-22442]

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT

Land Management Bureau

Land Withdrawals; Removal of

Regulations Covering

Emergency Withdrawals;

comments due by 10-27-08;

published 10-10-08 [FR E8-

238231

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT

Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife and Plants:

Designation of Critical

Habitat for the Peninsular

Ranges Population of

Desert Bighom Sheep;

comments due by 10-27-

08; published 8-26-08 [FR

E8-19465]

LABOR DEPARTMENT

Mine Safety and Health

Administration

Alcohol- and Drug-Free Mines;

Policy, Prohibitions, Testing,

Training, and Assistance;

comments due by 10-29-08;

published 9-26-08 [FR E8-

22679]

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Royalty Board,

Library of Congress

Mechanical and Digital

Phonorecord Delivery Rate

Determination Proceeding;

comments due by 10-31-08;

published 10-1-08 [FR E8-

23184]

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT

AND BUDGET

Management and Budget

Office

Guidance for Drug Free

Workplace Requirements

(Financial Assistance);

comments due by 10-27-08;

published 9-26-08 [FR E8-

22717]

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

OFFICE

Determining Rate of Basic.

Pay; Collection by Offset

From Indebted Government

Employees; comments due -

by 10-27-08; published 8-

27-08 [FR E8-19819]

SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION

Women-Owned Small

Business Federal Contract

Assistance Procedures;

comments due by 10-31-08;

published 10-1-08 [FR E8-

23139]

TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT

Federal Aviation

Administration

Airworthiness Directives:

328 Support Services GmbH

Domier Model 328 100

Airplanes; comments due

by 10-30-08; published 9-

30-08 [FR E8-22907]

Dowty Propellers R175/4-30;

R 184/4-30-4; R1 93/4-30-4;

R.209/4-40-4.5 et al.

Model Propellers;

comments due by 10-28-

08; published 8-29-08 [FR

E8-20081]

Saab Model SAAB Fairchild

SF340A (SAAB/SF340A)

and SAAB 340B

Airplanes; comments due

by 10-30-08; published 9-

30-08 [FR E8-22915]

Vulcanair S.p.A. Model P68

Series Airplanes;

comments due by 10-27-

08; published 9-26-08 [FR

E8-22338]

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Comptroller of the Currency

Minimum Capital Ratios;

Capital Adequacy

Guidelines; Capital

Maintenance; Capital:

Special Committee 215

Aeronautical Mobile

Satellite (Route) Services

Next Generation Satellite

Services and Equipment;

comments due by 10-30-

08; published 9-30-08 [FR

E8-22741]

Risk-Based Capital Guidelines;

Capital Adequacy

Guidelines:

Standardized Framework;

comments due by 10-27-

08; published 7-29-08 [FR

E8-16262]

Risk-Based Capital Guidelines;

Money Market Mutual

Funds; comments due by

10-31-08; published 9-26-08

[FR E8-22720]

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Internal Revenue Service

Alcohol Fuel and Biodiesel;

Renewable Diesel;

Alternative Fuel; DieselWater Fuel Emulsion;

Taxable Fuel Definitions;

Excise Tax Returns;

comments due by 10-27-08;

published 7-29-08 [FR E8-

17270]

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Terrorism Risk Insurance

Programs:

Cap on Annual Liability;

comments due by 10-30-

08; published 9-30-08 [FR

E8-22940]

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Thrift Supervision Office

Minimum Capital Ratios;

Capital Adequacy

Guidelines; Capital

Maintenance; Capital:

Special Committee 215

Aeronautical Mobile

Satellite (Route) Services

Next Generation Satellite

Services and Equipment;

comments due by 10-30-

08; published 9-30-08 [FR

E8-22741]

Risk-Based Capital Guidelines;

Capital Adequacy

Guidelines:

Standardized Framework;

comments due by 10-27-

08; published 7-29-08 [FR

E8-16262]

LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS

This is a continuing list of

public bills from the current

session of Congress which

have become Federal laws. It

may be used in conjunction

with "P LU S" (Public Laws

Update Service) on 202-741-

6043. This list is also

available online at http://

www.archives.gov/federalregister/laws.html.

The text of laws is not

published in the Federal

Register but may be ordered

in "slip law" (individual

pamphlet) form from the

Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402

(phone, 202-512-1808). The

text will also be made

available on the Internet from

GPO Access at http://

www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/

index.html. Some laws may

not yet be available.

H.R. 5159/P.L. 110-437

Capitol Visitor Center Act of

2008 (Oct. 20, 2008; 122 Stat.

4983)

S. 31971P.L. 110-438

National Guard and Reservists

Debt Relief Act of 2008 (Oct.

20, 2008; 122 Stat. 5000)

Last List October 21, 2008

Public Laws Electronic

Notification Service

(PENS)

PENS is a free electronic mail

notification service of newly

enacted public laws. To

subscribe, go to http://

listserv.gsa.gov/archives/

publaws-l.html

Note: This service is strictly

for E-mail notification of new

laws. The text of laws is not

available through this service.

PENS cannot respond to

specific inquiries sent to this

address.
Now Available -Online

through

GPO Access

A Service of the U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register

Updated Daily by 6 a.m. ET

Easy, Convenient,

FREE

Free public connections to the online Keeping America

Federal Register are available -through the Informed

GPO Access service.

To connect over the World Wide Web, ... electronically!

go to the Superintendent of

Documents' homepage at

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara

For further information, contact the GPO Access User Support Team:

Voice: (202) 512-1530 (7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time).

Fax: (202) 512-1262 (24 hours a day, 7 days a week).

Internet E-Mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov

I Re . 7104)