[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6716-6718]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03065]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0254]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from six individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis
of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0254 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], 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. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for a five-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
five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.
    The six individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). 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 statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advisory criteria states the following:
    If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic
seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require
anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to
control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical
Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before
certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting
period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting
period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete
neurological examination. If the results of the examination are
negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver
may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has recovered fully from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication.
    Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure
medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate 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 five-
year period or more.
    As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria
as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a
CMV 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 based on the physical qualification standards and medical best
practices.
    On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final
Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications;
Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant
requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory
requirement that interstate 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.'' Since the January 15, 2013 notice, the Agency has
published additional notices granting requests from individuals for
exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
    To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the
criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Eriki M. Galloway

    Mr. Galloway, 48, has a history of a seizure disorder and has been
seizure free since 1987. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the
dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1981. His physician
states that he is supportive of Mr. Galloway receiving an exemption.

Aaron J. Harms

    Mr. Harms, 29, has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free
since 2004. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since 2004. His physician states that he
is supportive of Mr. Harms receiving an exemption.

Matthew Heinen

    Mr. Heinen, 41, has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free
since 2004. He takes anti-seizure medications, with the dosages and
frequencies remaining the same since 2004. His physician states that
she is supportive of Mr. Heinen receiving an exemption.

Grant M. Johnson

    Mr. Johnson, 31, has a history of a seizure disorder and has been
seizure free since 1999. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the
dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1999. His physician
states that he is supportive of Mr. Johnson receiving an exemption.

Derick Pendergrass

    Mr. Pendergrass, 35, has a history of a seizure disorder and has
been seizure free since 2005. He takes anti-seizure medication, with
the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2005. His physician
states that he is supportive of Mr. Pendergrass receiving an exemption.

Paul D. Vitous

    Mr. Vitous, 59, has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free
since 2007. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since 2013. His physician states that he
is supportive of Mr. Vitous receiving an exemption.

III. 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.

IV. Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket number FMCSA-2017-0254 and click
the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and materials received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

V. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-2017-0254 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: February 7, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-03065 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 138 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38789]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15603]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2021-0069]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on May 28, 2021, Dallas Area
Rapid Transit (DART) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 229 (Railroad
Locomotive Safety Standards), 231 (Railroad Safety Appliance
Standards), and 238 (Passenger Equipment Safety Standards), and an
exemption from certain requirements of chapter 203, title 49 of the
United States Code (U.S.C.). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number
FRA-2021-0069.
    Specifically, DART requests special approval for certain design
elements of its Stadler FLIRT 3 diesel multiple unit (DMU) railcars
that do not comply with FRA regulations. DART seeks relief from 49 CFR
229.47(b), Emergency brake valve; 231.14(a)(2), (b)-(d), (f), and (g),
Passenger-train cars without end platforms; and 238.305(c)(5), Interior
calendar day mechanical inspection of passenger cars. DART also
requests that FRA exercise its authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to
exempt the DMUs from the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 20302, which, in
part, mandates that railroad vehicles be equipped with (1) couplers
that couple automatically by impact, and are capable of being
uncoupled, without individuals having to go between the ends of
equipment; and (2) secure sill steps and grab irons or handholds on the
vehicle's ends and sides for greater security to individuals coupling
and uncoupling the vehicle. See 49 U.S.C. 20302(a)(1)(A), (B), and
(a)(2).
    Section 20306 authorizes FRA to exempt rail equipment from the
requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 203, including Section 20302, when
those requirements ``preclude the development or implementation of more
efficient railroad transportation equipment or other transportation
innovations under existing law.'' Section 20306 requires FRA to base
any such exemption on either (1) findings developed at a hearing, or
(2) an agreement between labor and the developer of the equipment.
    FRA has previously held Section 20306 hearings for equipment
substantially similar to the FLIRT 3 DMUs.\1\ The equipment was also
proposed to be operated in substantially similar operating environments
to that which DART proposes in this docket.\2\ As a result, FRA finds
that holding a public hearing under Section 20306 in response to DART's
current exemption request is not necessary and FRA intends to rely on
the findings from these previous hearings when considering DART's
current exemption request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See FRA Docket Nos. FRA-2019-0066 (Amtrak) and FRA-2019-0068
(Texas Central Railroad); see also 85 FR 69700 (Nov. 3, 2020). Both
FRA dockets are available for review on www.regulations.gov.
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
    Communications received by September 7, 2021 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic
form of any written communications and comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-15603 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: May 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 89)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25516-25518]
[DOCID:fr07my08-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0452; A-1-FRL-8562-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Connecticut. The SIP revision addresses the
provisions of the Clean Air Act that require each state to address
emissions that may adversely affect another state's air quality through
interstate transport. The Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection has adequately addressed the four distinct elements related
to the impact of interstate transport of air pollutants. These include
prohibiting significant contribution to downwind nonattainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), interference with
maintenance of the NAAQS, interference with plans in another state to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and interference with
efforts of other states to protect visibility. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on June 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0452. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of
Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New
England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA.
EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at
the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Environmental Protection,
State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA
02114-2023, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On November 5, 2007 (72 FR 62420), EPA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Connecticut. The NPR
proposed approval of Connecticut's Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) transport SIP that was submitted by the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection on March 13, 2007. Connecticut's
SIP submittal addresses the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements
for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the CAA requires each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions
that could adversely affect another state. The SIP must prevent sources
in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1)
Contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment of the NAAQS; (2)
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS; (3) interfere with provisions
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality; and (4) interfere
with efforts to protect visibility. EPA issued guidance on August 15,
2006, relating to SIP submissions to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions
to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,'' Memorandum from William T. Harnett, EPA OAQPS,
to EPA Regional Air Division Directors, August 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the NPR, EPA has found that Connecticut has adequately
addressed the four distinct elements related to the impact of
interstate transport of air pollutants. The specific details of
Connecticut's transport SIP and the rationale for EPA's approval are
explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No comments were
received on the NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving Connecticut's March 13, 2007 Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) transport SIP submittal for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS as a revision to the Connecticut SIP. This SIP submittal
addresses the provisions of the Clean Air Act that require each state
to submit a SIP to address emissions that may adversely affect another
state's air quality through interstate transport. Connecticut has
adequately addressed the four distinct elements related to the impact
of interstate transport of air pollutants. These include prohibiting
significant contribution to downwind nonattainment of the NAAQS,
interference with maintenance of the NAAQS, interference with plans in
another state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and
interference with efforts of other states to protect visibility.
Therefore, EPA is approving Connecticut's SIP submittal as meeting the
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As a consequence of this approval, EPA is no longer obligated to
prepare a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Connecticut for this
CAA requirement. The FIP was due on May 25, 2007, pursuant to a finding
of failure to submit issued by EPA on April 25, 2005 (70 FR 21147).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House
of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States.
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 7, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: April 22, 2008.
Robert W. Varney,
 Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

0
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart H--Connecticut

0
2. Section 52.387 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.387  Interstate Transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS.

    On March 13, 2007, the State of Connecticut submitted a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision addressing the Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act
for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). There are four distinct elements related to
the impact of interstate transport of air pollutants. These include
prohibiting significant contribution to downwind nonattainment of the
NAAQS, interference with maintenance of the NAAQS, interference with
plans in another state to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality, and interference with efforts of other states to protect
visibility. EPA has found that Connecticut's March 13, 2007 submittal
adequately addresses these four distinct elements and has approved the
submittal as meeting the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. E8-9964 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46552-46555]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18532]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0446; A-1-FRL- 9842-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Regulations Limiting Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. These
are revisions to existing air pollution control requirements for
stationary sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX). This action is being taken under the Clean Air
Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 3,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2008-0446 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0446,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5

Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2008-0446. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal
holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
State Air Agency; Division of Air Quality Control, Department of
Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA
02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0046, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Additionally, the phrase ``the
Commonwealth'' refers to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information contained in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of State's Submittal
    a. Revisions to 310 CMR 7.00, Definitions.
    b. Revisions to 310 CMR 7.05, Fuels All Districts.
    c. Revisions to 310 CMR 7.18, Volatile and Halogenated Organic
Compounds.
    d. Revisions to 310 CMR 7.19, Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for Sources of Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX).
    e. Revisions to 310 CMR 7.24, Organic Material Storage and
Distribution.
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On July 11, 2001, and September 14, 2006, the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted two separate
requests for proposed revisions to its SIP. The July 11, 2001 submittal
was supplemented with two additional submittals, one on August 9, 2001,
and a second on January 18, 2002 (collectively referred to herein as
the July 11, 2001 submittal).
    The July 11, 2001 submittal includes revisions to Title 310 of the
Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR), section 7.19, Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) for Sources of Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX). Public hearings were held on July 25, 2000 and July
27, 2000 regarding the Commonwealth's July 11, 2001 submittal.
    The September 14, 2006 submittal included revisions to 310 CMR
7.00, Definitions; 7.05, Fuels All Districts; 7.19, RACT for Sources of
NOX; and 7.24, Organic Material Storage and Distribution.\1\
Public hearings were held on February 11, 2004, and February 12, 2004,
regarding the proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7.00, 7.05, 7.18, and 7.19
submitted by the Commonwealth on September 14, 2006. Public hearings
were held on October 18, 2005 and October 19, 2005, regarding the
proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7.00 and 7.24 submitted by the
Commonwealth on September 14, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note that the September 14, 2006 submittal included
additional revisions (such as 310 CMR 7.06) that were subsequently
withdrawn in a letter from MA DEP to EPA dated January 18, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of State's Submittal

a. Revisions to 310 CMR 7.00, Definitions

    The Commonwealth's submittal includes a number of terms to be added
or revised to 310 CMR 7.00, Definitions. The terms are defined to
facilitate interpretation and understanding, and enhance
enforceability, of the state's air pollution control regulations.
Definitions for 81 terms are included in the Commonwealth's submittal
and we are proposing to incorporate these terms into the Massachusetts
SIP. A list of these terms and the Commonwealth's definitions for them
are included in the Docket for this rulemaking. These definitions as
used in the Commonwealth's regulations that are currently approved into
the Massachusetts SIP are consistent with the applicable requirements
of the Clean Air Act. Among the more significant definitions being
amended are several which pertain to the Commonwealth's new source
review program, as follows: ``Federal potential to emit'';
``nonattainment area''; and ``Potential emissions or potential to
emit.'' These definitions were strengthened and are consistent with
federal requirements under the Clean Air Act.

b. Revisions to 310 CMR 7.05, Fuels All Districts

    The Commonwealth's September 16, 2006 submittal included a minor
change

to 310 CMR 7.05(2), Use of Residual Fuel Oil or Hazardous Waste Fuel.
The change consists of removing landfill gas from the requirements of
the section, as applicability to that fuel source appears to have been
unintentional, and several minor, technical wording changes.

c. Revisions to 310 CMR 7.18, Volatile and Halogenated Organic
Compounds

    Massachusetts' September 14, 2006 submittal included changes to
previously adopted portions of 310 CMR 7.18, Volatile and Halogenated
Organic Compounds. The majority of the changes were minor and designed
to improve the clarity of the regulation. A brief summary of the more
substantive changes is provided below.
    Within 310 CMR 7.18(1), Applicability and Handling Requirements,
the requirements for coating mixing tanks were strengthened by adding
tank cover requirements.
    Within 310 CMR 7.18(2), Compliance with Emission Limits, a
provision allowing daily-weighted averaging of coating limits was
inserted to provide greater flexibility to operators. This compliance
option is consistent with EPA's policy for coating regulations. See
EPA's ``Model VOC Rules for RACT,'' dated June, 1992.
    Within 310 CMR 7.18(8), Solvent Metal Degreasing, an exemption was
added for aqueous cleaners that meet specified criteria. This is a non-
significant amendment because the exemption applies to water-based
cleaners.
    Within 310 CMR 7.18(11), Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products, revised wording was provided to clarify exemption
eligibility requirements.
    Within 310 CMR 7.18(19), Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacture,
revised language was provided to clarify the submittal date for
quarterly reporting.
    Within 310 CMR 7.18(20), Emission Control Plans for Implementation
of RACT, revised language clarifies an exemption for certain facilities
issued approvals pursuant to 310 CMR 7.02, Plan Approvals. A provision
allowing for additional requirements, such as stack testing or
emissions monitoring, that would be added to emission control plans was
also incorporated into this section.
    Within 310 CMR 7.18, language that strengthens compliance
obligations by adding federally-enforceable emission limits, was added
to the following sections: of 310 CMR 7.18: (21), Surface Coating of
Plastic Parts; (22), Leather Surface Coating; (23), Wood Products
Surface Coating, (24), Flat wood Paneling Surface Coating; (25), Offset
Lithographic Printing; and, (26), Textile Finishing.
    Section 7.18(27), Coating Mixing Tanks, within which several minor
wording changes were made to improve the clarity of the regulation.
    Within 310 CMR 7.18(28), Automotive Refinishing, new emission
limits were established for multi-colored topcoats. Additionally, new
labeling and recordkeeping requirements were added, and exemptions for
touch up coatings, stencil coatings, and coatings sold in non-
refillable aerosol containers were added to the automotive refinishing
requirements. The exempted applications are reasonable and all pertain
to very low volume applications.
    EPA's automotive refinishing regulation similarly exempts such
coatings. See 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart B.

d. Revisions to 310 CMR 7.19, RACT for Sources of Oxides of Nitrogen

    As noted earlier in this notice, on July 11, 2001, the Commonwealth
submitted proposed SIP revisions to EPA. This submittal was
supplemented with additional materials sent to EPA on August 9, 2001
and January 18, 2002. Included within these submittals was an addition
to the list of sources exempt from NOX RACT. Specifically,
an exemption from NOX RACT requirements was added for any
source that obtained a plan approval under 310 CMR 7.02 establishing
best available control technology (BACT) or lowest achievable emission
rate (LAER) that is no less stringent than what would be required for
RACT under 7.19. This amendment is consistent with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act because it ensures a level of NOX control
at least as stringent as that required by RACT. The Commonwealth's
September 16, 2006 submittal contained further revisions to 7.19 which
consisted of minor editorial changes.

e. Revisions to 310 CMR 7.24, Organic Material Storage and Distribution

    The Commonwealth's September 16, 2006 submittal contained a change
to the tank inspection requirements located at 310 CMR 7.24(1)(d)(7).
The change removed the requirement that the covers and seals of double
seal system tanks be inspected once every five years. These inspections
must now occur whenever the tank is emptied for non operational reasons
or once every 10 years, whichever is sooner.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Emptying of such tanks during inspections causes a release
of VOCs, therefore minimizing the occurrence of such is beneficial.
For example, the EPA document ``Gasoline Distribution Industry--
Stage 1--Background Information for Promulgated Standards''
(November, 1994), notes that emptying and refilling a 150 foot
diameter tank will generate approximately 7 tons of VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior versions of 310 CMR 7.00, 7.05, 7.18, 7.19, and 7.24 have
previously been approved by EPA into the Massachusetts SIP. See 40 CFR
52.1120 and 52.1167. Today's amendments clarify and/or enhance the
enforceability of the existing regulations and on balance would not
result in any increases in VOC or NOX emissions. Therefore,
the anti-backsliding requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean Air
Act are met.
    EPA's review of this material indicates that the Commonwealth's
requests are approvable and consistent with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, and we are therefore proposing approval of them. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New
England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal
Register.

III. Proposed Action

    As noted earlier in this notice, EPA is proposing to approve SIP
revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts pertaining to
the following sections of 310 CMR: 7.00, Definitions; 7.05, Fuels All
Districts; 7.18, Volatile and Halogenated Organic Compounds; 7.19, RACT
for Sources of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX); and 7.24, Organic
Material Storage and Distribution.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 23, 2013.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2013-18532 Filed 7-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59743-59744]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23711]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 70, and 71

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0089; FRL-10001-61-OAR]

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source
Review, and Title V: Treatment of Corn Milling Facilities Under the
``Major Emitting Facility'' Definition; Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Partial grant and partial denial of a petition for
reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: On March 2, 2009, the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC)
submitted a petition for reconsideration (the NRDC Petition) of the
rule ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New
Source Review and Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production
Facilities Under the `Major Emitting Facility' Definition'' (the
Ethanol Rule), published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2007. The
Ethanol Rule reinterpreted the component term ``chemical process
plants'' within the statutory definition of ``major emitting facility''
and regulatory definitions of ``major stationary source'' under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source
Review programs and ``major source'' under title V, to exclude all
facilities that produce ethanol through a natural fermentation process.
In response to the NRDC Petition, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) grants the request for reconsideration with regard to NRDC's
claim that the Ethanol Rule did not appropriately address the Clean Air
Act (CAA) anti-backsliding requirements for nonattainment areas in the
Ethanol Rule. Therefore, the EPA is convening a proceeding for
reconsideration as provided for under the CAA. In the near future, the
EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register establishing a
comment period and opportunity for a hearing for this proceeding. With
regards to the other three claims raised in the NRDC Petition, the EPA
denies the request for reconsideration. For these claims, NRDC has
failed to establish that they meet the criteria for reconsideration
under the CAA.

DATES: November 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C504-03, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. 27711,

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dylan Mataway-Novak, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code C504-03, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, phone number
(919) 541-5795 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Where can I get copies of this document and other related
information?

    This Federal Register document, the petition for reconsideration,
and the response letter to the petitioner are available in the docket
that the EPA established for the Ethanol Rule under Docket ID NO. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2006-0089. All documents in the docket are listed in the index
at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in the docket or in hard copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The 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>, and the telephone number for

the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202)
566-1742.

II. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA.
This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed
in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When
the agency action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations
promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii)
when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action
is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in
taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such
action is based on such a determination.'' In the Ethanol Rule, the EPA
determined that the action was of nationwide scope and effect for the
purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1). See 72 FR 24060, 24077 (May 1,
2007).
    The EPA has determined that its actions denying the petitions for
reconsideration also are of nationwide scope and effect because these
actions directly relate to the Ethanol Rule that the EPA previously
determined are of nationwide scope and effect. Thus, any petitions for
review of the final letters denying the petitions for reconsideration
must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit on or before January 6, 2020.

    Dated: October 22, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-23711 Filed 11-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28764-28765]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-68-000]

Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Availability of the Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Sunrise Pipeline Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) for the
Sunrise Pipeline Project proposed by Equitrans, L.P.

(Equitrans) in the above referenced docket. This Project expands
Equitrans' natural gas pipeline system in Pennsylvania and West
Virginia in order to increase the natural gas delivery capacity to the
northeast region of the United States by approximately 313,560
dekatherms per day and improve the reliability of its existing system.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the Project
construction and operation in accordance with the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The FERC staff
concludes that approval of the Project, with appropriate mitigating
measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The proposed Sunrise Pipeline Project includes the following
facilities in Greene County, Pennsylvania and Wetzel County, West
Virginia:
     Approximately 44.4 miles of new pipeline varying from 16-
inch to 24-inch-diameter, 2.6 miles of replacement pipeline, and
retesting and uprating of 4.8 miles of pipeline;
     One new compressor station in Jefferson Township, Greene
County, Pennsylvania;
     Aboveground facilities consisting of 5 interconnect sites
(meter stations), 12 mainline block valves, 4 pig \1\ launchers/
receivers, 2 over-pipeline protection facilities, and 1 side tap valve
setting; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry
a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Temporary and permanent access roads and temporary storage
and contractor yards.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the
EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Regulatory Energy Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street,
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to federal, state and local
government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and
newspapers; intervenors to the FERC's proceedings; and affected
landowners, potentially affected landowners, and other interested
individuals and groups.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to
a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive
your comments in Washington, DC on or before June 10, 2011.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number CP11-68-000 with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff
available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an
easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments
on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling you
can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or,
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply
filing comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214) .\2\ Only intervenors
have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion of filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, then on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP11-68). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Date: May 11, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-12118 Filed 5-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39807-39810]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15847]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69861; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-064]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Message Types and Connectivity

June 26, 2013.
    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 June 19, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to codify certain definitions, practices and
requirements related to System connectivity and message types to
promote transparency and maintain clarity in the rules. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to codify certain definitions, practices and
requirements related to System connectivity and message types to
promote transparency and maintain clarity in the rules. Specifically,
the Exchange is proposing to (i) amend Rule 1.1 (Definitions) to define
``API,'' ``Order,'' and ``Quote''; (ii) amend Rule 6.23A to clarify
that authorized market participants connect electronically to the
Exchange via an ``Application Programming Interface'' (``API'') and
specify which APIs are available; (iii) adopt new Rule 6.23B to clarify
that a Trading Permit shall entitle the holder to a maximum number of
orders and quotes per second(s) as determined by the Exchange and that
Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') seeking to exceed that number of
messages per second(s) may purchase additional message packets at
prices set forth in the Exchange's Fees Schedule; and, adopt new Rule
6.53A to describe the types of order formats available to TPHs to
facilitate order entry. The proposed rule change also amends similar
rules applicable to the CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC (``CBSX'').\3\
Particularly, the Exchange is proposing to amend (i) CBSX Rule 53.25 to
clarify that authorized market participants connect electronically to
the Exchange via an ``Application Programming Interface'' (``API'') and
specify which APIs are available and (ii) adopt new CBSX Rule 51.8A to
describe the types of order formats available to facilitate order entry
on CBSX. Finally the Exchange seeks to revise Appendix A to the CBSX
Rules to account for the revised title of and renumbering to CBOE Rule
6.23A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CBSX is a stock trading facility of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first proposes to define ``Application Programming
Interface'' (``API''), ``Order'' and ``Quote'' in its rules. While
there are various references to these three terms throughout the
Exchange Rules, nowhere in the CBOE rules are the definitions codified.
Therefore, the Exchange believes it would be useful to explicitly
define these terms within the rule text to reduce confusion. First, the
Exchange proposes to define ``API'' as a computer interface that allows
market participants with authorized access to interface electronically
with the Exchange. This proposed definition is substantially similar to
the definition of API previously adopted by CBSX.\4\ Next the Exchange
will define the term ``quote'' or ``quotation'' as a bid or offer
entered by a Market-Maker that is firm and that updates the Market-
Maker's previous quote, if any. The proposed definition will also make
clear that electronic quotes may be updated in block quantities. The
proposed definition of the term ``quote'' is similar to the definition
previously adopted by the C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``C2'').\5\ Finally, the Exchange seeks to clarify that the term
``order'' means a firm commitment to buy or sell option contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CBSX Rule 50.1 (Definitions).
    \5\ See C2 Rule 1.1 (Definitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange believes it would be useful to codify how
authorized market participants may access the Exchange System.
Specifically, the Exchange will make clear that authorized market
participants access the Exchange via an API. Currently, the Exchange
offers two APIs: (1) CBOE Market Interface (``CMi'') and (2) Financial
Information eXchange (``FIX'') Protocol. Multiple versions of each API
may exist and be made available to all authorized market
participants.\6\ Authorized market participants may select which of the
available APIs they would like to use to connect to the System. The
Exchange believes it is important to provide market participants with
this flexibility so that they can determine the API that will be most
compatible with their systems and maximize the efficiency of their
interface. Connection to the System allows authorized market
participants to engage in order and quote entry, as well as auction
participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Currently, two versions of CMi exist and are available; CMi
and CMi2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange seeks to codify a similar description of market
participant connectivity in the CBSX rules. More specifically, the
proposed rule change will amend CBSX Rule 53.25 (Market Participant
Connectivity) to clarify that authorized market participants connect
electronically to the CBSX System via an API and specify which APIs are
available. Authorized market participants may select which of the
available APIs they would like to use to connect to the CBSX System.
The only distinction between the proposed CBOE and CBSX connectivity
rule is that the CBSX rule does not reference auction processing, as
CBSX does not utilize electronic auctions as part of the CBSX market.
    The Exchange believes that while information relating to
connectivity and available APIs for both CBOE and CBSX

is already widely available to all market participants via technical
specifications, codifying this information within the rule text will
provide additional transparency.
    The Exchange also seeks to codify and describe the types of order
formats that are available for order entry in new Rule 6.53A (Types of
Order Formats). Order formats are message types that are used to send
new orders into CBOE Command \7\ through a user's selected API.
Currently, all orders must be submitted to CBOE using the message type
Order Format 1 (``OF1''). Orders using the OF1 format must pass through
various processes, including validation checks in the Order Handling
Service (``OHS'') \8\, before execution, entry into the book,
cancellation, or routing for manual handling. Examples of such
validation checks include validating an order's origin code or
contingency type. Where an order is routed for processing by the OHS
depends on various parameters configured by the Exchange and the order
entry firm itself. Examples of such parameters are firm-specific volume
restrictions (i.e., orders larger than a firm-imposed quantity are
routed to booth/order management terminal) or inbound limit order price
reasonability (i.e., orders may be rerouted to booth/order management
terminal for manual review if ``too marketable''). OF1 supports all
order types, including auction responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CBOE Command is the trading engine platform for CBOE, C2,
CBSX and CBOE Futures Exchange (``CFE''). CBOE Command incorporates
both order handling and trade processing on the same platform.
    \8\ The Order Handling System (``OHS'') performs basic
validation checks and has the capability to route orders to the
trade engine for automatic execution and book entry, to Trading
Permit Holder and PAR Official workstations located in the trading
crowds for manual handling, and/or to other order management
terminals (``OMTs'') generally located in booths on the trading
floor for manual handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange seeks to also codify the order formats available on
CBSX and describe the processes that inbound orders must pass through
before execution, entry into the book, or cancellation, in new Rule
51.8A (Types of Order Formats). CBSX currently offers two order
formats; CBSX Order Format 1 (``CBSX OF1'') and CBSX Order Format 2
(``CBSX OF2''). TPHs may elect to use either order format on CBSX,
provided that the order format selected supports the given order type.
The Exchange believes it is important to provide market participants
with this flexibility so that they can determine the order format that
will be most compatible with their needs.
    Similar to CBOE OF1, orders using the CBSX OF1 format pass through
various processes, including validation checks in the OHS before
execution, entry into the book, or cancellation. Such validation checks
include validating an order's origin code or contingency type. Although
all orders using the CBSX OF1 format must pass through the OHS, they
are not subject to parameter checks related to routing, as routing for
manual handling is not an option on CBSX. CBSX OF1 also supports all
order types.
    Orders using the CBSX OF2 format on the other hand, bypass the OHS
system and instead are subject to a different validation process.
Although the OHS system is bypassed, orders using the CBSX OF2 format
are still subject to similar validation checks as CBSX OF1 (e.g.,
validating an order's origin code). These checks however, occur in the
trade engine rather than OHS. Additionally, fewer fields are required
for order entry using OF2 compared to using OF1. The utilization of
fewer fields results in a smaller message size, thereby increasing
efficiency. CBSX OF2 supports only Immediate-Or-Cancel, ISO, ISO-Book
and CBSX-Only orders. Accordingly, orders using the OF2 format will not
route to other market centers.
    Although the abovementioned order formats are currently offered by
the Exchange and are detailed in technical specifications available to
all TPHs, they have never been codified in either the CBOE or CBSX
rules. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to introduce new CBOE Rule
6.53A and CBSX Rule 51.8A to make it absolutely clear that these order
formats are available to users and to provide transparency and
certainty with respect to how orders using these order formats are
processed.
    The Exchange next proposes to add new Rule 6.23B (Bandwidth
Packets). New Rule 6.23B will provide that each Trading Permit shall
entitle the holder to a maximum number of orders and quotes per
second(s) as determined by the Exchange. The proposed new rule also
clarifies that only Market-Makers may submit quotes. Trading Permit
Holders seeking to exceed that number of messages per second(s) may
purchase additional message packets at prices set forth in the
Exchange's Fees Schedule. Additionally, the Exchange shall, upon
request and where good cause is shown, temporarily increase a Trading
Permit Holder's order entry bandwidth allowance at no additional cost.
All determinations to temporarily expand bandwidth allowances will be
made in a non-discriminatory manner and on a fair and equal basis. The
new rule also provides that no bandwidth limits shall be in effect
during the pre-opening prior to 8:25 a.m. CT, which shall apply to all
Trading Permit Holders. Finally, the Exchange may determine times
periods for which there shall temporarily be no bandwidth limits in
effect for all Trading Permit Holders. Any such determination shall be
made in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market. The
Exchange shall notify all TPHs of any such determination.
    The Exchange does not have unlimited system bandwidth capacity to
support an unlimited number of order and quote entry per second. For
this reason, the Exchange limits each Trading Permit to a maximum
number of messages per second(s). The Exchange notes that each Trading
Permit is subject to the same maximum number of quotes and/or orders
per second(s). A TPH can choose to have its bandwidth set at x messages
per 1 second or 5x messages per 5 seconds. For example, if the maximum
number of orders per second is 5 orders, a user may choose to have its
bandwidth set so that it may send in 5 orders per 1 second, or send in
25 orders over the course of 5 seconds. The Exchange however, also
recognizes that different TPHs have different needs and affords any TPH
the opportunity to purchase additional bandwidth packets at prices set
forth in the Exchange's Fees Schedule. For example, continuing with the
above illustration (i.e., ``x'' equals 5), if a TPH purchased one (1)
additional bandwidth packet, the TPH would have the ability to submit,
depending on how its bandwidth is set, either a total of 10 orders per
1 second or a total of 50 orders over the course of 5 seconds. While
these prices and this concept have already been codified in the Fees
Schedule, a corresponding rule was never codified within the rule
text.\9\ Therefore, the Exchange seeks to make clear that each Trading
Permit entitles the holder to a maximum number of messages per
second(s), and that additional message packets may be purchased for
those TPHs seeking to exceed that number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62386 (June 25,
2010) 75 FR 38566 (July 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-060); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62704 (August 12, 2010) 75 FR 51132 (April
18, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-073).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also seeks to make clear that under certain
circumstances and upon request, the Exchange may determine to
temporarily waive the maximum number of orders per second(s) and expand
the bandwidth settings at no additional cost to the requesting Trading
Permit Holder. One such example in which bandwidth may

be temporarily increased is in situations where a Trading Permit
Holder's system is experiencing technical problems, resulting in a
large order queue. Once the problem is resolved, the queue has to be
drained. In these instances, it may be necessary to temporarily expand
the bandwidth limits for that particular Trading Permit Holder to
accommodate the accumulation of orders in its system and to drain the
queue of orders. Another example is when another exchange declares a
trading halt and a Trading Permit Holder that has orders resting at
that exchange redirects that order flow to CBOE. The redirected order
flow may at times consist of thousands of orders. To enter such a large
quantity of orders, the Trading Permit Holder's bandwidth allowance
would require a temporary expansion, which, upon request and
demonstrated need, the Exchange could provide at no additional charge.
The Exchange also may temporarily expand bandwidth allowances for
requesting Trading Permit Holders on Volatility Index (``VIX'')
settlement days. Particularly, on VIX settlement days, it may be
necessary to expand bandwidth during the S&P 500 Index (``SPX'')
options opening to accommodate the increased order flow. This temporary
bandwidth increase ends as soon as the SPX is opened.
    All determinations to temporarily expand bandwidth allowances shall
be made in a non-discriminatory manner and on a fair and equal basis.
Additionally, all Trading Permit Holders who make such request and
demonstrate a need shall be entitled to a temporary expansion. The
Exchange shall document all requests for a temporary expansion of
bandwidth, including whether each request was granted or denied, along
with the reasons for each grant or denial. Also, temporary increases of
bandwidth generally are in effect for not longer than a few seconds or
for as long as is necessary to accommodate an order queue.
    Next, the Exchange notes that no bandwidth limits shall be in
effect for any Trading Permit Holder during pre-opening, prior to 8:25
a.m. CT. This allows Trading Permit Holders to release, and the
Exchange to absorb, order flow that has accumulated overnight and pre-
opening. The Exchange also notes that prior to the opening of trading,
such bandwidth restrictions are unnecessary. The Exchange may also
determine time periods for which there shall temporarily be no
bandwidth limits in effect for any Trading Permit Holder. Any such
determination shall be made in the interest of maintaining a fair and
orderly market. The Exchange shall notify all TPHs of any such
determination and shall keep a record of any such notification.
    The Exchange finally notes that language proposed in new Rule 6.23B
is based off a substantially similar rule previously adopted on C2.
Specifically, C2 has Rule 6.35 (Message Packets), which provides that a
Trading Permit shall entitle the holder to a maximum number of orders
and quotes per second as determined by the Exchange, that only Market-
Makers may submit quotes, and that Participants seeking to exceed that
number of messages per second may purchase additional message packets
at prices set forth in the Exchange's Fees Schedule.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See C2 Rule 6.35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as a result of this filing, current CBOE rule 6.23A will
be renumbered and retitled. Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to revise
Appendix A to the CBSX Rules to account for the revised title and
renumbering of CBOE Rule 6.23A.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) \11\ of
the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the requirements under Section 6(b)(5) \12\ that the
rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, clearly defining in the rules three key terms (i.e., API,
Quote, and Order) informs market participants. Next, codifying in the
rules how authorized market participants access the Exchange
electronically and specifying the manner in which inbound orders are
submitted and processed provides additional transparency in the rules
and provides market participants an additional avenue to easily
understand the system and processes CBOE offers. The Exchange believes
additional transparency removes a potential impediment to and
perfecting the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public
interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the order formats
being codified in proposed Rule 6.53A and CBSX Rule 51.8A allows the
Exchange to receive from Trading Permit Holders information in a
uniform format, which aids the Exchange's efforts to monitor and
regulate CBOE's markets and Trading Permit Holders and helps prevent
fraudulent and manipulative practices.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule changes are
designed to not permit unfair discrimination among market participants.
For example, under proposed CBOE Rule 6.23A(a) and CBSX Rule 53.25, all
authorized market participants may access the Exchange via an available
API of their choosing. Additionally, under proposed CBOE Rule 6.23B,
all holders of a Trading Permit are limited to maximum number of orders
and quotes per second(s) and all holders of Trading Permits are
afforded the opportunity to exceed that number by purchasing additional
message packets. Any determinations to temporarily expand bandwidth
allowances would also be made on a non-discriminatory basis. Finally,
proposed CBOE Rule 6.53A is applicable to all TPHs and CBSX Rule 51.8A
similarly provides that any TPH may elect to use either one of the two
available order formats.

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

    CBOE 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. Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change will not impose any burden because the Exchange is
merely harmonizing its Rules with current functionalities and
practices. Therefore, the proposed rule change promotes transparency in
the rules without adding any burden on market participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;

    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ thereunder.\15\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file
the proposed rule change along with a brief description and the text
of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to
the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time
as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-064 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-064. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-CBOE-2013-064,
and should be submitted on or before July 23, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15847 Filed 7-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 51 (Thursday, March 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14747-14748]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05569]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10021-32-Region 9]

Public Water System Supervision Program Revisions for the Navajo
Nation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of tentative approval.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Navajo Nation revised its
approved

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program under the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) by adopting the Radionuclides Rule. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that these
revisions by the Navajo Nation are no less stringent than the
corresponding Federal regulations and otherwise meet applicable SDWA
primacy requirements. Therefore, the EPA intends to approve the stated
revisions to the Navajo Nation's PWSS Program.

DATES: A request for a public hearing must be received or postmarked
before April 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
online at http://www.navajoepa.org. Should you have difficulty
accessing the website, please contact Yolanda Barney, Navajo PWSS
Program, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Ramos, EPA Region 9, Drinking
Water Section (WTR-4-1), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105;
via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via email address at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background. The EPA approved the Navajo Nation's initial
application for PWSS Program primary enforcement authority
(``primacy'') on October 23, 2000 (65 FR 66541). Since initial
approval, EPA has approved various revisions to Navajo Nation's PWSS
Program. For the revisions covered by this action, the EPA revised the
Radionuclides Rule on December 7, 2000 (66 Fed. Reg 76708). The
revisions set new monitoring provisions for community water systems
(CWS), retain the existing MCLs for combined radium-226 and radium-228,
gross alpha particle radioactivity, beta particle and photon activity,
and regulate uranium for the first time. EPA has determined that the
Radionuclides Rule requirements were incorporated by reference into the
Navajo Nation Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Part II Maximum
Contaminant Levels, Part IV Sampling and Analytical Requirements and
Appendix B--Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations and
Appendix F--Consumer Confidence Report, in a manner that Navajo
Nation's regulations are comparable to and no less stringent than the
federal requirements. Therefore, EPA intends to approve these revisions
as part of Navajo Nation's PWSS Program.
    Public Process. Any interested party may request a public hearing
on this determination. A request for a public hearing must be received
or postmarked by April 19, 2021, and addressed to the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region 9, via the following email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Regional Administrator (RA) may deny frivolous or
insubstantial requests for a hearing. If a substantial request for a
public hearing is made by April 19, 2021, EPA Region 9 will hold a
public hearing. Any request for a public hearing shall include the
following information: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of
the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; 2.
A brief statement of the requesting person's or organization's interest
in the RA's determination and a brief statement of the information that
the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and 3. The
signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is
made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a
responsible official of the organization or other entity.
    If EPA Region 9 does not receive a timely and substantive request
for a hearing and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a
hearing on her own motion, the determination at issue in this notice,
the EPA's approval shall become final and effective on April 19, 2021,
and no further public notice will be issued.

    Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42
U.S.C. 300g-2 (1996), and 40 CFR part 142 of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations.

    Dated: March 11, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2021-05569 Filed 3-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 25346]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10072]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0007]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated January 18, 2013, the Illinois Central Railroad (ICR) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 232, Brake System Safety Standards
for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train
Devices. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2013-0007.
    Specifically, ICR seeks a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 232.207,
Class IA brake tests--1,000-mile inspection. ICR currently operates a
total of five cycle trains and requests to extend the required mileage
interval of the Class 1A brake tests of said trains from 1,000 miles to
1,323 miles. ICR acknowledges that the subject trains currently operate
as extended-haul trains and that the distance between any two
inspections can be 1,500 miles. ICR states that it seems logical that
if a train is safe to travel 1,500 miles under the extended-haul
provisions, then there is no apparent danger in operating the trains as
cycle trains for 1,323 miles between Class IA brake tests. In addition,
ICR would enhance inspection quality by replacing the qualified person
(transportation employee) with a qualified mechanical inspector
(carman) during the Class 1A inspections.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received by June 14, 2013 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as is practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 24, 2013.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-10072 Filed 4-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P