[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 6788]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02342]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74186; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-139]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Shares of the iShares California AMT-Free Muni Bond
ETF and iShares New York AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF

February 2, 2015.
    On December 3, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change relating to shares of the iShares California AMT-
Free Muni Bond ETF and iShares New York AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on December 23, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73857 (Dec. 17,
2014), 79 FR 77069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is February 6, 2015. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
March 23, 2015, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-139).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02342 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74082-74084]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29191]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9919-98-ORD]

Announcement of the IRIS Bimonthly Public Science Meeting
Calendar for 2015

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of IRIS Bimonthly Public Science Meetings for calendar
year 2015.

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

SUMMARY: EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program is
committed to proactive stakeholder engagement, transparency, and using
the best available science in IRIS assessments. In accordance with the
increased stakeholder engagement enhancements adopted by the IRIS
Program, EPA is announcing a series of public science meetings for
calendar year 2015 to obtain public input at specific stages in the
process of developing an IRIS assessment.

DATES: The 2015 IRIS Bimonthly Public Science Meetings will be held on
the dates specified below. They will generally begin at 9:00 a.m. and
end at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, or earlier, if comments and discussions
have been completed. A two day time period has been reserved for each
meeting, but the actual duration will be specified when the agendas are
developed for each meeting throughout the year. All future
announcements and information about the meetings planned for 2015, and
the availability of EPA meeting materials for the chemicals undergoing
assessment by the IRIS Program, will be posted on the IRIS Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/iris/publicmeeting/). In the event there are no
materials to be discussed for any of the set meeting dates, a notice
canceling the meeting will be posted on the IRIS Web site.

IRIS Bimonthly Public Science Meetings Dates

February 25-26, 2015
April 29-30, 2015
June 17-18, 2015
September 2-3, 2015
October 28-29, 2015
December 16-17, 2015

ADDRESSES: The public meetings announced in this notice will be held at
the EPA conference center at One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777
South Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia, 22202. To gain entrance to
this EPA building, attendees must register at the security desk in the
lobby and present photo identification. In accordance with the Real ID
Act, which went into effect on July 2014, driver's license from Alaska,
American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
New York, Oklahoma, and Washington will not be accepted as a photo ID.
Detailed information on photo ID requirements are provided on the IRIS
public meeting Web site. To promote the broadest possible
participation, a webinar and teleconference line will also be available
for registered attendees/discussants.
    EPA will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. For information on access or services for individuals
with disabilities, contact Christine Ross, IRIS Staff, Environmental
Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Mail
Code: 8601P; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include your name and contact
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information about IRIS
public meetings, please contact Christine Ross, IRIS Staff,
Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA), Mail Code: 8601P; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information regarding the subject matter of a specific meeting, please
contact the EPA representative identified on the IRIS public meeting
Web site that will be established for each meeting (http://www.epa.gov/iris/publicmeeting/).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About IRIS

    EPA's IRIS Program is a human health assessment program that
evaluates quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that
may result from exposure to chemical substances found in the
environment. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality
science-based human health assessments to support EPA's regulatory
activities and decisions to protect public health. The IRIS database
contains information for chemical substances that can be used to
support the first two steps (hazard identification and dose-response
evaluation) of the human health risk assessment process. When supported
by available data, IRIS provides health effects information and
toxicity values for health effects (including cancer and effects other
than cancer). Government and others combine IRIS toxicity values with
exposure information to characterize public health risks of chemical
substances; this information is then used to support risk management
decisions designed to protect public health.

II. IRIS Public Science Meetings Conducted in 2013 and 2014

    The IRIS Program began conducting Bimonthly Public Science Meetings
in December 2013 and continued through 2014. During this period, a
total of five public science meetings were held. These meetings covered
12 chemicals undergoing assessment, including 2 assessments undergoing
problem formulation, 8 assessments in the step 1 literature search and
evidence table phase, and 2 assessments in the step 4 draft assessment
phase as indicated in the following table.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Date                                       Step                                                  Chemical
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 12-13, 2013....................  Step 1 Literature Search and Evidence      [ssquf] ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE).
                                           Table.                                    [ssquf] Tert-butyl alcohol (tert-butanol).
                                          Step 4 Public Comment Draft..............  [ssquf] hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX).

                                          [ssquf] ethylene oxide (EtO).............
                                          [ssquf] benzo[a]pyrene (BaP).............
April 23-24, 2014.......................  Step 1 Literature Search and Evidence      [ssquf] hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD).
                                           Table.                                    [ssquf] diethyl phthalate (DEP).
June 25-27, 2014........................  Step 1 Literature Search and Evidence      [ssquf] inorganic arsenic (iAs).
                                           Table.                                    [ssquf] hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)).

September 3, 2014.......................  Step 0 Problem Formulation...............  [ssquf] ethylbenzene.
                                                                                [ssquf] naphthalene.
October 29-30, 2014.....................  Step 1 Literature Search and Evidence      [ssquf] hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)).
                                           Table.                                    [ssquf] diisononyl phthalate (DINP).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Meeting materials for each of these meetings are available on the
IRIS Web site (http://www.epa.gov/iris/publicmeeting/). A chemical
specific docket has also been established (http://www.regulations.gov)
where public comments and presentations are available for each of the
chemicals discussed at an IRIS public science meeting. In addition, a
general IRIS docket (EPA-HQ-ORD-2014-0211) is available at
Regulations.gov for comments on cross-cutting issues broadly applicable
to IRIS assessments. The IRIS public meeting Web site and chemical
specific dockets are intended to provide transparency regarding
stakeholder input on IRIS assessments. Posting of public comments and
presentations are not an EPA endorsement of, or agreement with, any
information or viewpoints presented in the public comments and
presentations, nor is it an EPA endorsement of the quality or
correctness of such information and viewpoints. In addition, mention of
any trade names or commercial products in posted meeting material does
not constitute a recommendation by EPA for use.

III. IRIS Public Science Meetings Scheduled for 2015

    Public meetings will be held approximately every 2 months beginning
on February 25-26, 2015. Materials for the public meetings will begin
to be posted on the IRIS Web site (http://www.epa.gov/iris/publicmeeting/) in advance of the meeting (generally 2-3 months). The
meetings will provide an opportunity for the public to provide input on
problem formulation and preliminary materials prior to development of
the draft assessment and provide input on drafts of assessments and
charges to the peer review panels prior to external peer review. The
planned meeting dates for calendar year 2015 are: February 25-26, 2015;
April 29-30, 2015; June 17-18, 2015; September 2-3, 2015; October 28-
29, 2015; and December 16-17, 2015.
    Before an IRIS assessment begins, EPA releases scoping and problem
formulation materials which frame the scientific questions and key
issues that will be addressed in the assessment. In step 1 of the IRIS
process (development of the draft assessment), EPA releases preliminary
materials comprised of the draft literature search strategies,
describing the processes for identifying and screening scientific
literature, and the literature search results, and the preliminary
evidence tables and preliminary exposure-response arrays summarizing
key characteristics and findings from studies that EPA proposes to
consider when identifying hazards and characterizing exposure-response
relationships. EPA will hold a public meeting to discuss these
materials. In step 4 of the IRIS process (public review and comment/
independent expert peer review), EPA releases the draft assessment and
draft peer review charge for public comment and also holds a public
meeting to discuss these materials.
    The IRIS Program believes that public involvement can be most
beneficial at the early stages of developing an assessment. Releasing
problem formulation materials, the draft literature search strategy,
preliminary evidence tables, and preliminary exposure response arrays
early will ensure that critical research is not omitted and
communicates to the public the body of literature chosen for further
evaluation, helping frame major scientific questions and ultimately
leading to more efficient production of assessments. Meeting materials
provided at the early stage of an assessment, such as preliminary
evidence tables, have not been subjected to external peer review, and
they do not constitute EPA policy, support an EPA decision or position,
or represent any EPA determination. Such materials are being
distributed with the sole objective of facilitating a public scientific
discussion that is intended to promote the use of the best available
science and improve the utility and clarity of IRIS assessments.

IV. Meeting Registration

    Individuals planning to attend an IRIS Bimonthly Public Science
Meeting must register for each Bimonthly meeting. Registrants are
required to provide their name, contact information, company/
organization, and to identify the organization they are representing if
they are attending on behalf of another organization. Registrants must
also indicate whether they would like to participate as an opening
discussant on one or more of the key science questions identified by
EPA. If a registrant intends to request time on the agenda as an
opening discussant they should register no later than 30 days before
the meeting. All other participants should register no later than 7
days before the meeting. Details regarding registration procedures (in
person, via webinar, or teleconference) for each meeting will be posted
on the IRIS Web site (http://www.epa.gov/iris/publicmeeting/).

V. Meeting Materials and Meeting Format

    The assessment materials and the key science questions that will be
discussed at each public science meeting will be posted on the IRIS Web
site (http://www.epa.gov/iris/publicmeeting/) 2 to 3 months before each
meeting. The IRIS Program uses a meeting format intended to promote
public discussion. This format emphasizes conversational exchanges over
presentations, with slides used mainly to present concepts and data via
figures and tables. To provide a reasonable opportunity for all
stakeholders to participate in a thoughtful public dialogue on the
scientific questions, it is important that comments and visual aids
opening discussants intend to use during the meeting be made available
to the public prior to the meeting. Therefore, opening discussants are
requested to submit these materials to the appropriate chemical docket,
and the meeting organizer specified on the IRIS Web site, two weeks in
advance of the meeting. Materials submitted to the docket will become
available to the public shortly after submission.

VI. Independent Scientific Experts

    The IRIS Program has benefited from the scientific discussions and
information presented during the 2013 and 2014 Bimonthly Public Science
Meetings. In May 2014, the National Research Council (NRC) 2014 Report
on the IRIS Process was released. The NRC report recommended EPA
continue with additional efforts to ensure the full breadth of
perspectives are made available to EPA when discussing the IRIS process
and specific IRIS assessments. To broaden the input the IRIS Program
receives at the Bimonthly Public Science Meetings, EPA has asked the
National Research Council to identify additional scientific experts to

participate in the Bimonthly Public Science Meeting discussions. All
stakeholders and the public will continue to have the same opportunity
to participate as discussants by registering for the meetings under the
established procedures. Experts identified by the National Research
Council, reviewed for conflict of interest and bias, will participate
as discussants in their own capacity to contribute intellectual
leadership to discussions on critical scientific questions. The final
determination of who serves as an expert participant is made
independently by the National Research Council.

VII. How to Submit Materials to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov

    EPA invites the public to submit comments and other relevant
information regarding the chemicals discussed at a public science
meeting to the appropriate docket number established for each chemical
when the agenda for each meeting is released. Such data, information,
or comments may be submitted to the appropriate docket by one of the
following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting materials
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center [ORD Docket], (Mail Code: 28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
provide materials by mail, please submit one unbound original with
pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of the materials. For
attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the
comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.
     Hand Delivery: The ORD Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Deliveries are only accepted during the
docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by
hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered
consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments,
provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and
submit an unbound original and three copies.
    It is EPA's policy to include all materials it receives in the
public docket without change and to make the materials available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless materials include information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Posting of materials received in the
public docket is not an EPA endorsement of, or agreement with, any
information or viewpoints presented in the materials, nor is it an EPA
endorsement of the quality or correctness of such information and
viewpoints. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means that EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your
materials. If you send email comments directly to EPA without going
through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the materials that are
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit electronic materials, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your materials and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your materials due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your materials. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: December 5, 2014.
Gina Perovich,
Acting Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2014-29191 Filed 12-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 65772-65773]
[DOCID:fr23no07-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56806; File No. 4-429]

Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving Joint Amendment No. 24 to
the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket
Option Linkage Regarding Elimination of the Class Gate

November 16, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On September 14, 2007, September 19, 2007, August 29, 2007, August
30, 2007, and September 26, 2007, American Stock Exchange LLC
(``Amex''), Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE''), Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'') (collectively, the
``Participants''), respectively, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder\2\ an
amendment (``Joint Amendment No. 24'') to the Plan for the Purpose of
Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (``Linkage
Plan'').\3\ In Joint Amendment No. 24, the Participants propose to
eliminate the ``Class Gate'' restriction on Principal Order (``P
Order'') access through the Linkage. The proposed Joint Amendment No.
24 was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2007.\4\ The
Commission received no comments on Joint Amendment No. 24.

This order approves Joint Amendment No. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ On July 28, 2000, the Commission approved a national market
system plan for the purpose of creating and operating an intermarket
options market linkage (``Linkage'') proposed by Amex, CBOE, and
ISE. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43086 (July 28, 2000),
65 FR 48023 (August 4, 2000). Subsequently, Phlx, Pacific Exchange,
Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Arca), and BSE joined the Linkage Plan. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 43573 (November 16, 2000), 65
FR 70851 (November 28, 2000); 43574 (November 16, 2000), 65 FR 70850
(November 28, 2000); and 49198 (February 5, 2004), 69 FR 7029
(February 12, 2004).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56596 (October 2,
2007), 72 FR 58133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Amendment

    In Joint Amendment No. 24, the Participants proposed to modify
section 7(a)(ii)(C) of the Linkage Plan so as to eliminate the Class
Gate restriction on P Order access through the Linkage. Currently,
section 7(a)(ii)(C) of the Linkage Plan provides that, once a
Participant automatically executes a P Order in a series of an Eligible
Option Class, it may reject any other P Orders sent in the same
Eligible Option Class by the same Participant for 15 seconds after the
initial execution unless there is a price change in the receiving
Participant's disseminated offer (bid) in the series in which there was
the initial execution and such price continues to be the NBBO. After
the 15 second period, and until the sooner of one minute after the
initial execution or a change in its disseminated offer (bid), section
7(a)(ii)(C) provides that the Participant that provided the initial
execution is not obligated to execute any P Orders received from the
same Participant in the same Eligible Option Class in its automatic
execution system. In Joint Amendment No. 24, the Participants proposed
to eliminate the Class Gate restriction because all Participants have
removed restrictions on non-customer access to the automatic execution
systems, rendering the Class Gate restriction unnecessary.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration of Joint Amendment No. 24, the
Commission finds that approving Joint Amendment No. 24 is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds that Joint Amendment No.
24 is consistent with section 11A of the Act \5\ and Rule 608
thereunder \6\ in that it is appropriate in the public interest, for
the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets. The Commission recognizes that, at the time of the creation of
the Linkage, certain Participants had restrictions on non-customer
access to their automatic execution systems. The Class Gate provision
served to protect those Participants that did not limit non-customer
access against being obligated to automatically execute an unlimited
number of P Orders. Since the implementation of the Linkage, all
Participants have removed restrictions on non-customer access to their
automatic execution systems. All of the exchanges, therefore, allow
access to their trading platforms orders on behalf of non-member market
makers. The Commission believes that the greater access to automatic
execution systems has rendered the Class Gate provision unnecessary and
that eliminating the Class Gate provision should facilitate the more
efficient operation of the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \6\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 11A of the Act \7\ and
Rule 608 thereunder,\8\ that Joint Amendment No. 24 is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.608.

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

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-22842 Filed 11-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 234 (Thursday, December 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62861-62862]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26484]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9987-33-Region 8]

Settlement Agreement for Recovery of Past Response Costs: ACM
Smelter and Refinery Site, Great Falls, Cascade County, Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed agreement; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of section 122(h)(1) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA'') notice is hereby given of the
proposed settlement under section 122 (h)(1) of CERCLA, between the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Atlantic Richfield Company
and ARCO Environmental Remediation, LLC (Settling Parties). The
proposed Settlement Agreement requires the Settling Parties to
reimburse the EPA for past response costs. The Settling Parties will
pay ($851,393.17) within 30 days after the effective date of the
Proposed Agreement to the EPA. The Settling Parties consent to and will
not contest the authority of the United States to enter into the
Agreement or to implement or enforce its terms. The Settling Parties
recognize that the Agreement has been negotiated in good faith and that
the Agreement is entered into without the admission or adjudication of
any issue of fact or law.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2019. For
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the
Agency will receive written comments relating to the agreement. The
Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or

withdraw its consent to the agreement if comments received disclose
facts or considerations that indicate that the agreement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: The proposed agreement and additional background information
relating to the agreement, as well as the Agency's response to any
comments are or will be available for public inspection at the EPA
Superfund Record Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, by
appointment. Comments and requests for a copy of the proposed agreement
should be addressed to Maureen O'Reilly, Senior Enforcement Specialist,
Environmental Protection Agency-Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF-RC, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, and should reference the ACM
Smelter and Refinery Superfund Site, EPA Docket No. CERCLA-08-2019-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Naftz, Enforcement Attorney,
Legal Enforcement Program, Environmental Protection Agency-Region 8,
Mail Code 8ENF-L, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303)
312-6942.

    Dated: November 16, 2018.
Suzanne Bohan,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Enforcement, Compliance and
Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
VIII.
[FR Doc. 2018-26484 Filed 12-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 21859]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-82-000.
    Applicants: La Frontera Holdings, LLC.
    Description: La Frontera Holdings, LLC Submits Self-Certification
of EWG Status.
    Filed Date: 4/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160405-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-704-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing--Revisions to
Identify U.S. Canada Border as POD/POR to be effective 3/8/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160405-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1348-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Great
River Energy.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-04-05--GRE Attachment O
Revisions to be effective 6/4/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160405-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1349-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Initial rate filing: KU Rate Schedule 408 APCO
Borderline Agmt to be effective 4/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160405-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1350-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2252R4 Cottonwood Wind
Project GIA Cancellation to be effective 3/10/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160405-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 5, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08415 Filed 4-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65546-65547]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26438]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-2-000]

Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC; Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.; Notice of
Petition To Amend Authorizations Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act

    Take notice that on October 9, 2012, Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC
and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively, Sabine Pass), 700 Milam
Street, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP13-2-
000, an application, pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) and Parts 153 and 380 of the Commission's Regulations, to amend
the authorizations granted on April 16, 2012 in Docket No. CP11-72-000
(Liquefaction Project) in order to construct and operate certain
related facilities (Modification Project) at the existing Sabine Pass
LNG Terminal, located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Sabine Pass states
that the Modification Project is required to enhance the operation and
reliability, as well as facilitate the construction, of the Sabine Pass
Liquefaction Project, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Patricia Outtrim, V.P. Government Affairs, Cheniere Energy, Inc., 700
Milam Street, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77002, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Or contact Lisa M. Tonery,
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10103, or
call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit an original and 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and
must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the
proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov,
using the ``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: November 8, 2012.

    Dated: October 18, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26438 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 54486-54488]
[DOCID:fr25se07-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56457; File No. SR-Amex-2007-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange, LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to
Amendments to Exchange Training and Examination Requirements

September 18, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 1, 2007, the American Stock Exchange, LLC. (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
On September 5, 2007, Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto,
from interested persons and approve the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 supersedes and replaces the original rule
filing in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing training and
examination requirements.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at Amex, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.amex.com.

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 III 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
    Amex proposes certain clarifying changes to its rules governing its
training and examination requirements. These changes are in connection
with implementation of a mandatory annual training program for all
floor members that addresses compliance with the federal securities
laws and Amex rules to help prevent and deter unlawful trading by floor
members, as well as to otherwise simplify and enhance the Exchange's
existing training programs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pursuant to an undertaking agreed to in connection with the
recent settlement of a Commission administrative proceeding (the
``Order''), Amex agreed to enhance its existing regulatory training
programs for floor members and certain staff members that addresses
compliance with the federal securities laws and Exchange rules to
help prevent and deter unlawful trading by floor members. See
Exchange Act Release No. 55507; Administrative Proceeding File No.
3-12594 (March 22, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would require all floor members to
participate in a mandatory annual regulatory training program, which
would include participation in any Exchange testing programs in
connection with the mandatory training program. The Exchange
anticipates that the mandatory training program would be organized and
grouped by floor member function and therefore foresees holding
separate sessions for specialists, floor brokers, and registered
traders.
    The Exchange also proposes to enhance the new member qualification
program. The new member qualification program currently in place
requires all prospective new members to participate in a comprehensive
training program and successfully complete a corresponding examination
at the conclusion of the training. Members seeking to qualify as
specialists must successfully complete a separate examination as well.
The new program would retain the new member training program and
examination as they currently exist, but would replace the specialist
examination with an in-depth training program. The Exchange represents
that it has found that new specialist applicants, in preparing for the
specialist examination, focus primarily on the requirements necessary
to pass the examination. The Exchange believes that a more effective
method of training prospective specialists would involve training
specifically related to specialists' particular activities and
requirements. To this end, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the
specialist

examination and instead institute an in-depth qualifying training
program for specialist applicants.
    The specialist training sessions would be structured in a manner
similar to the new member training program, which covers the federal
securities laws and Amex rules applicable to the prospective members'
proposed functions. Likewise, the specialist training sessions would be
held in small group settings to foster interaction, and to ensure that
all participants actively engage in the training to help the
participants become fully cognizant of the rules governing their floor
activities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange would offer the training programs on a periodic
basis sufficiently frequent to reasonably accommodate demand and to
ensure that all floor members receive training as required by the
Order and in accordance with Amex rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, in connection with floor clerk training, the Exchange
proposes to eliminate the initial test requirements for new floor
clerks but would maintain the annual training requirement for all floor
clerks (post, booth and DK) active in the business on the Exchange
trading floor (other than those performing strictly ministerial
functions).
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes changes to the following rules:
Rule 50
    Exchange Rule 50, Commentary .01, currently governs examination
requirements for regular members seeking to register as specialists and
regular or options principal members seeking to register as registered
traders. The Exchange notes that in recent years, the examination
requirement for registered traders has been subsumed into the new
member examination. As stated above, the Exchange is proposing to amend
Rule 50 to replace the specialist qualifying examination with a
mandatory qualifying training program, which would include
participation in any Exchange testing in connection with these
mandatory training programs. The requirement for registered trader
applicants to pass an examination has been removed in this proposal,
since such examination has been subsumed into the new member
examination.
    Proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 50 describes the requirement that
all floor members participate in a mandatory annual regulatory training
program, which would include participation in any Exchange testing
programs in connection with this mandatory training program. This
proposed Commentary would subject members who fail to satisfactorily
complete the program to a fine and, if warranted, preclusion from the
trading floor until the requirement is met.
    Proposed Commentary .04 is similar to proposed Commentary .03,
except that it describes the mandatory regulatory training program for
clerks. This program is comparable to the mandatory continuing
education program implemented through current Exchange Rule 359A. The
Exchange proposes to incorporate this requirement into Rule 50, and to
eliminate Rule 359A, since both govern training requirements. The
Exchange believes that having only one rule would help to simplify and
clarify these requirements. In this proposal, the proposed rule text
clarifies that clerks who perform strictly ministerial functions would
be exempted. Sanctions for noncompliance, which are similar to those
applicable to members, are also described.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to add new Commentary .05 to Rule 50
to state that the Exchange will submit a rule filing with the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, proposing any new, or
deleting any current, testing requirements outlining the content of
such exam. The Exchange also committed to issue a formal notice to its
membership notifying it of any changes in the current testing
requirements. In addition, the Exchange moved the reference to study
guides as noted in Commentary .03 to proposed Commentary. 05.
Rule 110 and Rule 110-AEMI
    Exchange Rule 110 and Rule 110-AEMI govern requirements for
Registered Traders. Members applying to register as Registered Traders
are required to pass a Registered Trader Examination as prescribed by
the Exchange. In recent years, the examination requirement for
Registered Traders has been subsumed into the New Member Examination.
The Exchange therefore proposes to amend both Rule 110 and Rule 110-
AEMI to eliminate this obsolete reference. Pursuant to proposed Rule
50, Registered Traders would be required to participate in an Exchange-
sponsored mandatory training program, which would include participation
in any Exchange testing in connection with this mandatory training
program.
Rule 353
    Exchange Rule 353 governs regular and options principal membership
and limited trading permit requirements and references relevant
examination requirements. If a candidate is going to be active on the
Floor, he or she must pass an examination before being permitted to
execute orders on the Floor. Specialist candidates must pass an
additional examination after a period of training. The Exchange
proposes to eliminate the additional examination required of specialist
candidates after a period of training as referenced in Rule 353. This
proposed rule would instead reference the new mandatory qualifying
training program for specialist applicants. The Exchange believes that
the new mandatory qualifying training program for specialists will be
more effective in training new specialist applicants on the
requirements applicable to their respective member functions.
Rule 359A
    Exchange Rule 359A governs mandatory continuing education for all
floor members and mandatory continuing education and initial test
requirements for floor clerks of members and member firms. Rule 359A
presently requires all floor members and floor clerks of members (post,
booth and DK) to participate in the Exchange-sponsored mandatory
continuing education program, which is conducted online. Rule 359A
would be eliminated under this proposal. The rules governing mandatory
continuing education and regulatory training would be incorporated into
Rule 50, and the initial test requirements for new floor clerks would
be eliminated.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that, pursuant to the Order, all floor
members, as well as members of Amex's regulatory staff who are
responsible for the surveillance, investigation, examination and
discipline of floor members, would be required to participate in
mandatory annual regulatory training.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \6\ of the
Act in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \7\ in
particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest. Furthermore, the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(6) \8\ in that
it is designed to appropriately discipline or sanction members for
violation of the provisions

of this title, the rules or regulations thereunder, or the rules of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change will impose no burden on competition that
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Amex-2007-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-54. 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.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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 Amex. 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-Amex-2007-54 and should be
submitted on or before October 16, 2007.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\9\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which requires, among
other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change institutes a mandatory annual training program for Amex
floor members. The Commission believes that this proposal should allow
the Exchange to more effectively train its members to ensure compliance
by its members with Exchange rules and the federal securities laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(6) \11\ of the Act
because it is designed to allow Amex to discipline or sanction members
under its Minor Rule Violation Fine System for violation of the
provisions of the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\12\ to grant accelerated approval to the proposed rule
change before the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof
in the Federal Register. As noted above, the proposed rule change is in
response to a Commission Order requiring Amex to enhance its training
program to help ensure compliance by its members with Exchange rules
and federal securities laws. The Commission believes that mandatory
training of Amex floor members should be implemented as soon as
possible so that floor members are made aware of their duties and
obligations under the federal securities laws as well as the rules of
the Amex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2007-54), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-18822 Filed 9-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16495-16497]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07053]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0213]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 4
individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that
interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have ``no established
medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other
condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of
ability to control a CMV.'' The regulation and the associated advisory
criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the
``Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations''
have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs
in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical
examiner. The Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these CMV
drivers will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater
than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. FMCSA
grants exemptions that will allow these 4 individuals to operate CMVs
in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The exemptions preempt
State laws and regulations and may be renewed.

DATES: The exemptions are effective March 27, 2015. The exemptions
expire on March 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. 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., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

B. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the safety regulations 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.
    FMCSA grants 4 individuals an exemption from the regulatory
requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(8), to allow these individuals who take
anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-
year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is
based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical
information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s), the
length of time elapsed since the individual's last seizure, and each
individual's treatment regimen. In addition, the Agency reviewed each
applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License
Information System (CDLIS) \1\ for commercial driver's license (CDL)
holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in Motor
Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS).\2\ For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State licensing
agency. The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a

seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency believes the drivers
covered by the exemptions granted here have demonstrated that they are
unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not pose a
risk to public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) is an
information system that allows the exchange of commercial driver
licensing information among all the States. CDLIS includes the
databases of fifty-one licensing jurisdictions and the CDLIS Central
Site, all connected by a telecommunications network.
    \2\ Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) is an
information system that captures data from field offices through
SAFETYNET, CAPRI, and other sources. It is a source for FMCSA
inspection, crash, compliance review, safety audit, and registration
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, the
Agency considered both current medical literature and information and
the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP).
The Agency previously gathered evidence for potential changes to the
regulation at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) by conducting a comprehensive review
of scientific literature that was compiled into the ``Evidence Report
on Seizure Disorders and Commercial Vehicle Driving'' (Evidence Report)
[CD-ROM HD TL230.3 .E95 2007]. The Agency then convened a panel of
medical experts in the field of neurology (the MEP) on May 14-15, 2007,
to review 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and the advisory criteria regarding
individuals who have experienced a seizure, and the 2007 Evidence
Report. The Evidence Report and the MEP recommendations are published
on-line at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/mep/mep-reports.htm, under Seizure Disorders, and are in the docket for this
notice.

MEP Criteria for Evaluation

    On October 15, 2007, the MEP issued the following recommended
criteria for evaluating whether an individual with epilepsy or a
seizure disorder should be allowed to operate a CMV.\3\ The MEP
recommendations are included in previously published dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Engel, J., Fisher, R.S., Krauss, G.L., Krumholz, A., and
Quigg, M.S., ``Expert Panel Recommendations: Seizure Disorders and
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety,'' FMCSA, October 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Epilepsy diagnosis. If there is an epilepsy diagnosis, the
applicant should be seizure-free for 8 years, on or off medication. If
the individual is taking anti-seizure medication(s), the plan for
medication should be stable for 2 years. Stable means no changes in
medication, dosage, or frequency of medication administration.
Recertification for drivers with an epilepsy diagnosis should be
performed every year.
    Single unprovoked seizure. If there is a single unprovoked seizure
(i.e., there is no known trigger for the seizure), the individual
should be seizure-free for 4 years, on or off medication. If the
individual is taking anti-seizure medication(s), the plan for
medication should be stable for 2 years. Stable means no changes in
medication, dosage, or frequency of medication administration.
Recertification for drivers with a single unprovoked seizure should be
performed every 2 years.
    Single provoked seizure. If there is a single provoked seizure
(i.e., there is a known reason for the seizure), the Agency should
consider specific criteria that fall into the following two categories:
Low-risk factors for recurrence and moderate-to-high risk factors for
recurrence.
     Examples of low-risk factors for recurrence include
seizures that were caused by a medication; by non-penetrating head
injury with loss of consciousness less than or equal to 30 minutes; by
a brief loss of consciousness not likely to recur while driving; by
metabolic derangement not likely to recur; and by alcohol or illicit
drug withdrawal.
     Examples of moderate-to-high-risk factors for recurrence
include seizures caused by non-penetrating head injury with loss of
consciousness or amnesia greater than 30 minutes, or penetrating head
injury; intracerebral hemorrhage associated with a stroke or trauma;
infections; intracranial hemorrhage; post-operative complications from
brain surgery with significant brain hemorrhage; brain tumor; or
stroke.
    The MEP report indicates individuals with moderate to high-risk
conditions should not be certified. Drivers with a history of a single
provoked seizure with low risk factors for recurrence should be
recertified every year.

Medical Review Board Recommendations and Agency Decision

    FMCSA presented the MEP's findings and the Evidence Report to the
Medical Review Board (MRB) for consideration. The MRB reviewed and
considered the 2007 ``Seizure Disorders and Commercial Driver Safety''
evidence report and the 2007 MEP recommendations. The MRB recommended
maintaining the current advisory criteria, which provide that ``drivers
with a history of epilepsy/seizures off anti-seizure medication and
seizure-free for 10 years may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked
seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if
seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a 5 year period or
more'' [Advisory criteria to 49 CFR 391.43(f)].
    The Agency acknowledges the MRB's position on the issue but
believes relevant current medical evidence supports a less conservative
approach. The medical advisory criteria for epilepsy and other seizure
or loss of consciousness episodes was based on the 1988 ``Conference on
Neurological Disorders and Commercial Drivers'' (NITS Accession No.
PB89-158950/AS). A copy of the report can be found in the docket
referenced in this notice.
    The MRB's recommendation treats all drivers who have experienced a
seizure the same, regardless of individual medical conditions and
circumstances. In addition, the recommendation to continue prohibiting
drivers who are taking anti-seizure medication from operating a CMV in
interstate commerce does not consider a driver's actual seizure history
and time since the last seizure. The Agency has decided to use the 2007
MEP recommendations as the basis for evaluating applications for an
exemption from the seizure regulation on an individual, case-by-case
basis.

C. Exemptions

    Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications,
including a review of detailed follow-up information requested from
each applicant, FMCSA is granting exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)
to 4 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 4 drivers
receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) would have been
considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce
except that they presently take or have recently stopped taking anti-
seizure medication. For these 4 drivers, the primary obstacle to
medical qualification was the FMCSA Advisory Criteria for Medical
Examiners, based on the 1988 ``Conference on Neurological Disorders and
Commercial Drivers,'' stating that a driver should be off anti-seizure
medication in order to drive in interstate commerce. In fact, the
Advisory Criteria have little if anything to do with the actual risk of
a seizure and more to do with assumptions about individuals who are
taking anti-seizure medication.
    In addition to evaluating the medical status of each applicant,
FMCSA evaluated the crash and violation data for the 4 drivers, some of
whom currently drive a CMV in intrastate commerce. The CDLIS and MCMIS
were searched for crash and violation data on the 4 applicants. For
non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State
licensing agency.
    These exemptions are contingent on the driver maintaining a stable
treatment regimen and remaining seizure-free during the 2-year
exemption period. The exempted drivers must submit annual reports from
their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and
that the driver

has remained seizure-free. The driver must undergo an annual medical
examination by a medical examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5,
following the FCMSA's regulations for the physical qualifications for
CMV drivers.
    FMCSA published a notice of receipt of application and requested
public comment during a 30-day public comment period in a Federal
Register notice for each of the applicants. A short summary of the
applicants' qualifications and a discussion of the comments received,
if any, follows this section. For applicants who were denied an
exemption, a notice will be published at a later date.

D. Comments

Docket # FMCSA-2014-0213

    On August 12, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications and requested public comment on six individuals
(79 FR 47174; Docket number FMCSA-2014-19076). The comment period ended
on September 11, 2014. No commenters responded to this Federal Register
notice. Of the six applicants, two were denied. The Agency has
determined that the following four applicants should be granted an
exemption.
Lee H. Anderson
    Mr. Anderson is a 41 year-old driver in Massachusetts. He has a
history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 2002. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since that time. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a
CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Anderson receiving an
exemption.
Gary A. Combs, Jr.
    Mr. Combs is a 38 year-old driver in Kentucky. He has a history of
one seizure in 2006 due to a brain tumor which was removed in 2006 and
has remained seizure free since that time. He does not take anti-
seizure medication. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a
CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Combs receiving an
exemption.
Roland K. Mezger
    Mr. Mezger is a 41 year-old driver in Pennsylvania. He has a
history of juvenile epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1997.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would
like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr.
Mezger receiving an exemption.
Robert Thomas, Jr.
    Mr. Thomas is a 47 year-old driver in North Carolina. He has a
history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 1999. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive
a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Thomas
receiving an exemption.

E. Basis for Exemption

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) 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, the
Agency's 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 the driver to
driving in intrastate commerce.

Conclusion

    The Agency is granting exemptions from the epilepsy standard, 49
CFR 391.41(b)(8), to 4 individuals based on a thorough evaluation of
each driver's safety experience, and medical condition. Safety analysis
of information relating to these 4 applicants meets the burden of
showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
without the exemption. By granting the exemptions, the interstate CMV
industry will gain 4 highly trained and experienced drivers. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be valid for
2 years, with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The
person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was
maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136 and 31315.
    FMCSA exempts the following 4 drivers for a period of 2 years with
annual medical certification required: Lee Anderson (MA); Gary Combs,
Jr. (KY); Roland Mezger (PA); and Robert Thomas, Jr. (NC) from the
prohibition of CMV operations by persons with a clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or seizures. If the exemption is still in effect at the end of
the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under
procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: March 20, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-07053 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P