[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7248-7251]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03309]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82700; File No. SR-ISE-2018-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Short
Term Option Series Program

February 13, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on February 7, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in

Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Option Series
Program to allow Monday expirations for options listed pursuant to the
Short Term Option Series Program, including options on the SPDR S&P 500
ETF Trust.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, 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 amend Rule 100(a)(51) and Rule 504,
Supplementary Material .02 to expand the Short Term Option Series
program (``Program'') to permit the listing and trading of options
series with Monday expirations that are listed pursuant to the Program,
including options on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (``SPY'').
    The Exchange notes that having Monday expirations is not a novel
proposal. Specifically, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') recently received
approval to list Monday expirations for SPY options pursuant to its
Short Terms Options Series program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82611 (February 1,
2018), 83 FR 5473 (February 7, 2018) (SR-Phlx-2017-103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in Rule 100(a)(51), a Short Term Option Series is a
series in an option class that is approved for listing and trading on
the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday or Friday that is a business day and that expires
on the Wednesday or Friday of the next business week that is a business
day. The Exchange is now proposing to amend Rule 100(a)(51) to permit
the listing of options series that expire on Mondays. Specifically, the
Exchange is proposing that it may open for trading series of options on
any Monday that is a business day and that expires on the Monday of the
next business week that is a business day. The Exchange is also
proposing to list Monday expirations series on Fridays that precede the
expiration Monday by one business week plus one business day. Since
Rule 100(a)(51) already provides for the listing of short term option
series on Fridays, the Exchange is not modifying this provision to
allow for Friday listing of Monday expiration series. However, the
Exchange is amending Rule 100(a)(51) to clarify that, in the case of a
series that is listed on a Friday and expires on a Monday, that series
must be listed one business week and one business day prior to that
expiration (i.e., two Fridays prior to expiration).
    As part of this proposal, the Exchange is also amending Rule
100(a)(51) to address the expiration of Monday expiration series when
the Monday is not a business day. In that case, the rule will provide
that the series shall expire on the first business day immediately
following that Monday. This procedure differs from the expiration date
of Wednesday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a
holiday. In that case, the Wednesday expiration series shall expire on
the first business day immediately prior to that Wednesday, e.g.,
Tuesday of that week.\4\ However, the Exchange believes that it is
preferable to require Monday expiration series in this scenario to
expire on the Tuesday of that week rather than the previous business
day, e.g., the previous Friday, since the Tuesday is closer in time to
the scheduled expiration date of the series than the previous Friday,
and therefore may be more representative of anticipated market
conditions. The Exchange notes that this provision is identical to the
corresponding provision recently adopted by Phlx in its proposal to
list options series with Monday expirations pursuant to its Short Term
Option Series program. The Exchange also notes that Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe'') uses the same procedure for options on the S&P 500 index
(``SPX'') with Monday expirations that listed pursuant to its
Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program and that are scheduled to expire
on a holiday.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 100(a)(51).
    \5\ See CBOE Rule 24.9(e)(1) (``If the Exchange is not open for
business on a respective Monday, the normally Monday expiring Weekly
Expirations will expire on the following business day. If the
Exchange is not open for business on a respective Wednesday or
Friday, the normally Wednesday or Friday expiring Weekly Expirations
will expire on the previous business day.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding changes to
Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 504, which sets forth the
requirements for SPY options that are listed pursuant to the Program,
to permit Monday SPY expirations (``Monday SPY Expirations'').
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .02
to state that, with respect to Monday SPY Expirations, the Exchange may
open for trading on any Friday or Monday that is a business day series
of options on the SPY to expire on any Monday of the month that is a
business day and is not a Monday in which Quarterly Options Series
expire, provided that Monday SPY Expirations that are listed on a
Friday must be listed at least one business week and one business day
prior to the expiration. As with the current rules for Wednesday SPY
Expirations, the Exchange will also amend Supplementary Material .02 to
state that Monday SPY Expirations will not be included in the total of
the Short Term Option Expiration Dates. Relatedly, the Exchange
proposes to amend Supplementary Material .02 to provide that it may
list up to five consecutive Monday SPY Expirations at one time, and may
have no more than a total of five Monday SPY Expirations (in addition
to a maximum of five Short Term Option Series expirations for SPY
expiring on Friday and five Wednesday SPY Expirations). The Exchange
will also clarify that, as with Wednesday SPY Expirations, Monday SPY
Expirations will be subject to the provisions of this Rule.
    The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday SPY
Expirations will be the same as those for the current Short Term Option
Series for Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations. Specifically, the
Monday SPY Expirations will have a $0.50 strike interval minimum. As is
the case with other options series listed pursuant to the Short Term
Option Series, the Monday SPY Expiration series will be P.M.-settled.
    Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the
Program, the Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for each
expiration date for the specific class. The thirty (30)

series restriction does not include series that are open by other
securities exchanges under their respective short term option rules;
the Exchange may list these additional series that are listed by other
exchanges.\6\ This thirty (30) series restriction shall apply to Monday
SPY Expiration series as well. In addition, the Exchange will be able
to list series that are listed by other exchanges, assuming they file
similar rules with the Commission to list SPY options expiring on
Mondays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Supplementary Material .02(a) to Rule 504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange is amending Commentary .02(b) to Rule 504
which addresses the listing of Short Term Options Series that expire in
the same week as monthly or quarterly options series. Currently, that
rule states that no Short Term Option Series may expire in the same
week in which monthly option series on the same class expire (with the
exception of Wednesday SPY Expirations) or, in the case of Quarterly
Options Series, on an expiration that coincides with an expiration of
Quarterly Option Series on the same class. The Exchange is proposing to
extend this exemption to Monday SPY Expirations. As with Wednesday SPY
Expirations, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to extend this
exemption to Monday SPY Expirations because Monday SPY Expirations and
standard monthly options will not expire on the same trading day, as
standard monthly options expire on Fridays. Additionally, the Exchange
believes that not listing Monday SPY Expirations for one week every
month because there was a monthly SPY expiration on the Friday of that
week would create investor confusion. For this reason, the Exchange is
amending Commentary .02(b) to Rule 504 to clarify that Monday and
Wednesday SPY Expirations may expire in the same week as monthly option
series in the same class expire, but that no Short Term Option Series
may expire on the same day as an expiration of Quarterly Option Series
on the same class.
    The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be
encountered with the introduction of P.M.-settled Monday expirations.
The Exchange has the necessary capacity and surveillance programs in
place to support and properly monitor trading in the proposed Monday
expiration series, including Monday SPY Expirations. The Exchange
currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire
almost every Wednesday and Friday, which provide market participants a
tool to hedge special events and to reduce the premium cost of buying
protection. The Exchange notes that it has been listing Wednesday
expirations pursuant to Rule 100 and Rule 504 since 2016.\7\ With the
exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a
holiday, the Exchange does not believe that there are any material
differences between Monday expirations and Wednesday or Friday
expirations for Short Term Option Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78715 (August 29,
2016), 81 FR 60765 (September 2, 2016) (SR-ISE-2016-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange seeks to introduce Monday expirations to, among other
things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and to
continue the reduction of the premium cost of buying protection. The
Exchange believes that Monday expirations, similar to Wednesday and
Friday expirations, will allow market participants to purchase an
option based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their
investment and hedging needs more effectively.
    As noted above, Phlx recently received approval to list Monday
expirations for SPY options pursuant to its Short Terms Options
program. In addition, other exchanges currently permit Monday
expirations for other options. For example, Cboe lists options on the
SPX with a Monday expiration as part of its Nonstandard Expirations
Pilot Program.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CBOE Rule 24.9(e)(1) (``The Exchange may open for
trading Weekly Expirations on any broad-based index eligible for
standard options trading to expire on any Monday, Wednesday, or
Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that
coincide with an EOM expiration).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the Short Term Option Series
Program has been successful to date and that Monday expirations,
including Monday SPY Expirations, simply expand the ability of
investors to hedge risk against market movements stemming from economic
releases or market events that occur throughout the month in the same
way that the Short Term Option Series Program has expanded the
landscape of hedging. Similarly, the Exchange believes Monday
expirations, including Monday SPY Expirations, should create greater
trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and will provide
customers with the ability to tailor their investment objectives more
effectively. As noted above, Phlx recently received approval to list
Monday expirations for SPY options pursuant to its Short Terms Options
program. In addition, Cboe currently permits Monday expirations for
other options with a weekly expiration, such as options on the SPX.
    With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled
to expire on a holiday, the Exchange does not believe that there are
any material differences between Monday expirations, including Monday
SPY expirations, and Wednesday or Friday expirations, including
Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, for Short Term Option Series. The
Exchange notes that it has been listing Wednesday expirations pursuant
to Rule 100 and Rule 504 since 2016. The Exchange believes that it is
consistent with the Act to treat Monday expiration series that expire
on a holiday differently than Wednesday or Friday expiration series,
since the proposed treatment for Monday expiration series will result
in an expiration date that is closer in time to the scheduled
expiration date of the series, and therefore may be more representative
of anticipated market conditions. The Exchange also notes that Cboe
uses the same procedure for SPX options with Monday expirations that
are listed pursuant to its Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program and
that are scheduled to expire on a holiday.
    Given the similarities between Monday SPY Expiration series and
Wednesday and Friday SPY Expiration series, the Exchange believes that
applying the provisions in Commentary .02 to Rule 504 that currently
apply to Wednesday SPY Expirations to Monday SPY Expirations is
justified. For example, the Exchange believes that allowing Monday SPY
Expirations and monthly SPY expirations in the same week will benefit
investors and minimize investor confusion by providing Monday SPY
Expirations in a continuous and uniform manner. The Exchange also
believes that is appropriate to amend Commentary .02(b) to Rule 504 to
clarify that no Short Term Option Series may expire on the same day as
an expiration of Quarterly Option Series on the same class. This change
will make that provision more consistent with the existing language in
Commentary .02 that prohibits Wednesday SPY Expirations from expiring
on a

Wednesday in which Quarterly Options Series expire.
    Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate
surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in Monday
expirations, including Monday SPY Expirations, in the same way that it
monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series. The Exchange
also represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support
the new options series.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that having
Monday expirations is not a novel proposal, as Phlx has received
approval to list Monday expirations for SPY options, and Cboe currently
lists and trades short-term SPX options with a Monday expiration. The
Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intra-
market competition, as all market participants will be treated in the
same manner under this proposal. Additionally, the Exchange does not
believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market
competition, as nothing prevents the other options exchanges from
proposing similar rules to list and trade short-term options series
with Monday expirations.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intention to file 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 requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing. However, Rule
19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the
30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative
immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that it recently approved
Phlx's substantially similar proposal to list and trade Monday SPY
Expirations.\14\ The Exchange has stated that waiver of the operative
delay will allow the Exchange to list and trade Monday SPY Expirations
as soon as possible, and therefore, promote competition among the
option exchanges. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change presents no novel issues and that waiver of the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, and will allow the Exchange to remain
competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal effective
upon filing.\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 shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ See supra note 3.
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2018-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-13. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-13 and should be submitted on
or before March 13, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03309 Filed 2-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45868-45869]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18647]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-
2007-0071; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-
2012-0161]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
15 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective September 9, 2014. Comments must be
received on or before September 5, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-1999-
6480; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2008-
0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2012-0161], using any of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 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 or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (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 on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-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 procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 15 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 15 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Frank R. Berritto (NY), Thomas L. Corey (IN), James H. Facemyre (WV),
Gregory L. Farrar (TX), Jeffrey M. Hall (AL), Clifford J. Harris (VA),
Oskia D. Johnson (IN), Michael G. Martin (CT), Bobby L. Mashburn (GA),
Aaron L. Paustian (IA), Larry A. Priewe (ND), Kenneth R. Riener (MT),
Leon F. Stephens (CO), Patrick D. Talley (SC), Timothy J. Wilson (MD).

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 15 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (64 FR 68195; 65 FR 20251; 67 FR 38311; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR
57267; 69 FR 26921; 69 FR 51346; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 27033; 71 FR 30227;
71 FR 50970; 73 FR 6244; 73 FR 15568; 73 FR 16952; 73 FR 27014; 73 FR
27017; 73 FR 35197; 73 FR 42403; 73 FR 48270; 73 FR 48275; 75 FR 22179;
75 FR 27623; 75 FR 34212; 75 FR 38602; 75 FR 47888; 75 FR 50799; 77 FR
36338; 77 FR 40945; 77 FR

40946; 77 FR 41879; 77 FR 48590; 77 FR 52391). Each of these 15
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by September 5, 2014.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 15 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

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 numbers FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-
2002-12294; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-
2008-0106; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2012-0161 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 material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, to submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2007-0071;
FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2012-0161 and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find
all documents and comments related to the proposed rulemaking.

    Issued on: July 29, 2014.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-18647 Filed 8-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


( B) ( C) ( E) ( F)

( A) No. of Person hours Technical Total Person Occurrences per respondent ( D) person hours annual hours per per respondent per year Respondents per year cost Burden Item Occurrence per year ( C= AxB) per year Notes ( E CxD) ($/ yr) ( a)

1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Acquisition, Installation and utilization of Technology systems 54 1 54 579 ( b) 31,266.0 $ 1,155,279 4. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions 0.13 1 0.13 579.0 ( b) 75.3 $ 2,781 B. Required activities Initial performance test 29.0 ( b)( c) $ 3,817,833 Repeat performance test 2.0 ( d)( e) $ 26,750 Startup, shutdown, malfunction plan 32 1 32 579.0 ( b) 18,528.0 $ 684,610 Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan 32 1 32 579.0 ( b) 18,528.0 $ 684,610 C. Create information See 4B D. Gather existing information See 4B E. Write report Notification of applicability 2 1 2 579.0 ( b) 1,158.0 $ 42,788 Notification of constr./ reconstr. N/ A Notification of anticipated startup N/ A Notification of actual startup N/ A Notification of special compliance requirements N/ A Notification of performance test 2 1 2 29.0 ( b)( c) 58.0 $ 2,143 Notification of compliance status 4 1 4 579.0 ( b) 2,316.0 $ 85,576 NESHAP waiver application 0 0 0 0.0 ( f) 0.0 $ 0 Report of performance test See 4B Report of monitoring exceedances 8.3 1 8.3 58.0 ( g) 481.4 $ 17,788 Report of no excess emissions 8 2 16 54.5 ( h) 872.0 $ 32,220 Startup, shutdown, malfunction report 8 2 16 3.0 ( i) 48.0 $ 1,774 5. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read instructions 4 1 4 579.0 ( b) 2,316.0 $ 85,576 B. Plan activities See 5E C. Implement activities See 5E D. Develop record system See 5E E. Time to enter information Records of all information required by standards 1.5 52 78 220.0 ( j)( k) 17,160.0 $ 634,062 F. Time to train personnel 20 1 20 579.0 ( b) 11,580.0 $ 427,881 G. Time to adjust existing ways to comply with previously applicable requirements N/ A H. Time to transmit or disclose information 0.25 1.1 0.275 579.0 ( l) 159.2 $ 5,883 I. Time for audits N/ A TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) Total Technical hrs 104,545.9 $ 7,707,554 Management hrs 5,227.3 Clerical hrs 10,454.6 Total hrs 120,227.8 Costs of installing monitors ( m) $ 1,253,197 Total costs per year $ 8,960,751 Annualized capital cost ( n) $ 535,363 Total annual O& M costs $ 152,250 Total annualized costs $ 687,613 ( a) Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 33, management at $ 49, and clerical at $ 15. Management person hours and clerical person hours are assumed to be 5 % and 10 % of technical person hours, respectively.

( b) A total of 1,736 ( 86 major secondary aluminum production plants, 1,650 sweat furnaces) plants are expected to comply during the 3 year ICR clearance period, for an average of 579 plants per year ( 1736/ 3 = 578.7).

( c) Assumes 29 plants conducts an average of 9 emission tests using one or more test methods as follows:

Method 5 for PM @ $ 8,500, Method 23 for dioxin/ furans @ 26,500, Method 26A for hydrogen chloride @ $ 10,000, and Method 25A for total hydrocarbons @ $ 8,500. It is assumed that the 1,650 sweat furnaces will comply by meeting the equipment specifications rather than by conducting performance tests.

( d) Assumes respondent may fail the emission test using one of the test methods ( e) Assumes 6 plants will fail the initial performance test and must repeat it, for an average of 2 plants per year.

( f) Assumes no respondents will request a waiver from performance test requirements.

( g) Assumes 5 % of 1,158 ( 579 respondents x 2 reports/ yr) respondents ( 58) report exceedances twice a year.

( h) Assumes 95 % of 57.4 existing respondents ( 54.5) report no excess emissions semiannually.

( i) Assumes 3 sources will have a startup, shutdown, or malfunction occur in a year that is not managed according to the plan.

( j) Assumes 1.5 hours per source.

( k) Assumes information is entered 1 time per week for 52 weeks/ yr for 38% ( 220) of sources ( 0.38x579).

( l) Assumes 29 major source transmits one time notifications of applicability and initial performance test, and compliance status ( including performance test report);

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; and 6 semi annual reports of excess emissions ( or no excess emissions) over the 3 year period,

for a total of 10 items or an average of 3.3 items per year during the 3 year period. The remaining 550 sources transmit once per year. Avg. no. of occurrences = [ 29( 3.3) + 550( 1)] / 579 = 1.1.

( m) For 29 major sources, assumes one bag leak detector is required for each two baghouse controlled process units at a cost ranging from $ 9,100 for a unit with a single probe to $ 45,195 for a unit with 7 probes; assumes that half of the chlorine injection systems already have chlorine flow meters and the others require installation of a new meter at a cost of $ 3,000 each. Temperature monitors will be installed on 217 sweat furnace afterburners at a cost of $ 1,200 each.

( n) Annualized cost of installing monitors based on a 10 year life and 7% interest rate.

N/ A = Not Applicable. Table 2. Annual Burden and Cost to the Federal GovernmentSheet1 ( A) ( B) ( C) ( D) ( E) ( F) ( G) ( H)

EPA person No. of EPA person Plants Notes Technical Management Clerical Cost Burden Item hours per occurences hours per per person person person ($/ yr) ( a)

occurrence per plant plant per year hours hours hours per year year per year per year per year ( C= AxB) ( E= CxD) ( Ex0.05) ( Ex0.1)

Initial performance test 40 1.4 56 29 ( b) 1,624.0 81.2 162.4 $ 60,007 Repeat performance test Retesting preparation 8 1 8 2 ( c) 16.0 0.8 1.6 $ 591 Retesting 40 1 40 2 ( c) 80.0 4.0 8.0 $ 2,956 Litigation 2,080 1 2,080 5.79 ( d) 12,043.2 602.2 1,204.3 $ 444,998 Excess Emissions Enforcement Act. 48 1 48 2.9 ( e) 139.2 7.0 13.9 $ 5,143 Report Review Notification of applicability 2 1 2 579 ( b) 1,158.0 57.9 115.8 $ 42,788 Notification of constr./ reconstr. N/ A Notification of anticipated startup N/ A Notification of actual startup N/ A Notification of special compliance reqts. N/ A Notification of initial performance 2 1 2 29 ( b) 58.0 2.9 5.8 $ 2,143 Notification of compliance status 2 1 2 579 ( b) 1,158.0 57.9 115.8 $ 42,788 Performance test report 40 1 40 29 ( b) 1,160.0 58.0 116.0 $ 42,862 Repeat performance test report 40 1 40 2 ( c) 80.0 4.0 8.0 $ 2,956 Excess emissions report 20 2 40 58 ( f) 2,320.0 116.0 232.0 $ 85,724 No excess emissions report 20 2 40 54.5 ( g) 2,180.0 109.0 218.0 $ 80,551 NESHAP waiver application N/ A Startup, shutdown, malfunction 20 2 40 3 ( h) 120.0 6.0 12.0 $ 4,434 report TOTAL BURDEN AND COST( SALARY) 22,136.4 1,106.9 2,213.6 $ 817,942 Travel Expenses for Tests Attended ( 1 person x 5 plants/ yr x 2 days/ plant x $ 50 per diem) + ($ 400/ round trip x 5 round trips/ yr) = $ 2,500 Total Annual Cost Total Annual Cost = $ 817,942 + $ 2,500 = $ 820,442 a Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 33, management at $ 49, and clerical at $ 15. Management person hours and clerical person hours are assumed to be 5 percent and 10 percent of technical person hours, respectively.

b A total of 1,736 sources are expected to comply during the 3 year ICR clearance period, for an average of 579 plants per year. Of these sources, 29 major sources will perform compliance testing.

c Of the 6 plants that fail the initial performance test, all repeat the performance test, for an average of 2 sources per year.

d One plant in 100 ( 5.79) will be involved in litigation ( 579/ 100 = 5.79).

e Assumes 5 percent of the 58 ( 29 x 2) sources ( 2.9) are required to retest as a result of excess emissions.

f Assume 5% of 1,158 ( 579 sources x 2 reports/ yr) sources ( 58) report exceedances twice a year.

g Assume 95% of 57.4 sources ( 54.5) will file no excess emissions reports.

h Assumes 3 sources will have a startup, shutdown, or malfunction occur in a year that is not managed according to the plan.

N/ A = Not applicable.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57466-57469]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19888]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0418; FRL-9950-94-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Minor New Source Review--Nonroad Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia state
implementation plan (SIP). The revisions amend the definition of
``nonroad engine'' under Virginia's minor New Source Review (NSR)
requirements to align with Federal requirements. EPA is approving these
revisions to the Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 24, 2016 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 22,
2016. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2016-0418 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 17, 2014, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ), on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, submitted a formal
revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of amendments to the
definition of ``nonroad engine'' under VADEQ's minor NSR regulations.
Virginia has a SIP approved minor NSR program located in the Virginia
Administrative Code (VAC) at 9VAC 5-80 which regulates certain
modifications and construction of stationary sources within areas
covered by its SIP as necessary to assure the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) are achieved.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    VADEQ's June 17, 2014 SIP submittal includes revisions to the
definition of ``nonroad engine'' under the VAC, specifically 9VAC5-80-
1110. The definition of ``nonroad engine'' was expanded to include
portable and temporary engines. The revision to 9VAC5-80-1110 makes
VADEQ's definition more consistent with the Federal definition at 40
CFR 89.2. According to VADEQ, Federal design standards for internal
combustion engines and Federal fuel standards for engines are already
more restrictive than permit requirements for portable and temporary
engines in Virginia's minor NSR program. Virginia's amended definition
adopts the Federal definition of ``nonroad engine,'' grouping portable
engines and temporary engines together with other non-mobile engines.
The revised definition will streamline Virginia's minor NSR program by
no longer requiring VADEQ to issue minor NSR permits without meaningful
additional emissions control requirements on those engines. Virginia
asserted the amended definition does not increase emissions or
otherwise affect air quality.
    EPA finds these revisions are appropriate and meet the Federal
requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
for a minor NSR program. Additionally, the revision to 9VAC5-80-
1110(and in particular the deletions in the revised regulation) are in
accordance with

section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving VADEQ's June 17, 2014 SIP submittal and
incorporating the revised regulation into Virginia's SIP. EPA is
publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However,
in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will
be effective on October 24, 2016 without further notice unless EPA
receives adverse comment by September 22, 2016. If EPA receives adverse
comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec.  10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.'' Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides
that ``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
NSR program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event,
because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and
immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any
impact on federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke
its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167,
205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the
state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition,
citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected
by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the VADEQ
rules regarding definitions and permitting requirements discussed in
section II of this preamble. Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update of the SIP
compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
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 action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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 CAA; 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 action 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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 24, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action.
    This action pertaining to Virginia's minor NSR program 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 8, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an
entry for Article 6--Permits for New and Modified Stationary Sources
after Article 5 in 9 VAC 5-80 and adding an entry for 5-80-1110 to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Explanation
       State citation               Title/subject              State         EPA Approval date      [former SIP
                                                          effective date                             citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         9 VAC 5, Chapter 80 Permits for Stationary Sources [Part VIII]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Article 6--Permits for New and Modified Stationary Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-80-1110..................  Definitions................         3/27/14  8/23/16, [Insert        ..............
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation]..

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2016-19888 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 14842-14843]
[DOCID:fr01ap09-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

SMS Rail Service

[Docket Number FRA-2009-0018]

    The SMS Rail Service (SMS Lines) of Bridgeport, New Jersey, has
petitioned for a permanent waiver of compliance for three locomotives
(SLRS 304, SLRS 305 and SLRS 306) from the requirements of the Railroad
Safety Glazing Standards, Title 49 CFR Part 223, which requires
certified glazing in all windows. The locomotives are in good condition
with no defective glass. SMS Lines operates these locomotives in back-
up service within the Pureland Industrial Park in Bridgeport, NJ, and
the Valero Refinery in Paulsboro, NJ. There has been no history of
broken glass at these locations and there are no overhead bridges or
tunnels. The maximum operating speed is 10 miles per hour. SMS Lines
states that they plan to upgrade all three locomotives to FRA Safety
Glazing Standards as and when these locomotives are overhauled and
repaired. SMS Lines is, therefore, seeking interim relief from the FRA
Safety Glazing Standards.
    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 (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2009-0018) 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 within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    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 comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-7250 Filed 3-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29075-29076]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13373]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0563; FRL-9964-18-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer
Products (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements for National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards
for Consumer Products, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through June 30, 2017. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register on March 22, 2017, during a 60-day comment period.
No comments were received on that document. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0563, to (1) the EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to
EPA

Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Susan Fairchild, Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code
D243-04, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents for this ICR (Reporting
and Recordkeeping Requirements for National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards for Consumer Products (40 CFR part 59, subpart C)
(Renewal); OMB Control Number 2060-0348; EPA ICR Number 1764.07), which
explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are
available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed
online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center,
EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202)
566-1744. For additional information about the EPA's public docket,
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The EPA is required under section 183(e) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) to regulate volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
the use of consumer and commercial products. Pursuant to CAA section
183(e)(3), the EPA published a list of consumer and commercial products
and a schedule for their regulation (60 FR 15264). The standards for
consumer products are codified at 40 CFR part 59, subpart C. The
information collection includes initial reports and periodic
recordkeeping necessary for the EPA to ensure compliance with Federal
standards for VOC in consumer products. Respondents are manufacturers,
distributors, and importers of consumer products. All information
submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will
be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR
part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information. The reports
required under the standards enable the EPA to identify all consumer
products manufacturers, distributors, and importers in the United
States and to determine which consumer products are subject to the
standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action as respondents are manufacturers, distributors, and
importers of consumer products.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Responses to the collection are
mandatory under 40 CFR part 59, subpart C.
    Estimated number of respondents: 300 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 16,126 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,765,427 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease of 13,487 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to adjustments to the estimated
hours for each level of review. These adjustments are consistent with
the assumptions used routinely in ICR renewals, and are discussed in
the supporting statements for this action.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-13373 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 36106-36107]
[DOCID:fr24jn10-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0535]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply
Vessel SOUTHERN CROSS

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel SOUTHERN CROSS as
required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternate Compliance was issued on June 7,
2010.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2010-0535 in the ``Keyword'' box, pressing Enter, and
then clicking ``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call LTJG Christine Dimitroff, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S.
Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed for under Title
33, Code of Federal Regulation, Parts 81 and 89, has been issued for
the offshore supply vessel SOUTHERN CROSS, O.N. 1223869. Full
compliance with 72 COLREGS and the Inland Rules Act would hinder the
vessel's ability to conduct loading and unloading operations, and would
hinder the vessel's ability to maneuver within close proximity to
offshore platforms. Placing the aft masthead light at the horizontal
distance from the forward masthead light as required by Annex I,
paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the
Inland Rules Act, would result in an aft masthead light location
directly over the aft cargo deck where it would interfere with loading
and unloading operations and would make the mast highly susceptible to
damage during such operations. Therefore, the horizontal distance
between the forward and aft masthead lights may be 23'-1\1/
8\, placing the aft masthead light over the pilot house.
    In addition, due to the design of the vessel it would be difficult
and impractical to build a supporting structure that would put the side
lights within 10% inboard from the greatest breadth of the vessel, as
required by Annex I, paragraph 3(b) of the 72 COLREGS and Annex I,
Section 84.05(b), of the Inland Rules Act. Compliance with the rule
would cause the side lights to be in a location which would be highly
susceptible to damage from offshore platforms.
    Locating the side lights 7'- 9\5/8\ inboard
from the greatest breadth of the vessel on the pilot house will provide
a sheltered location for the lights and allow maneuvering within close
proximity to offshore platforms.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the placement
of the side lights to deviate from requirements set forth in Annex I,
paragraph 3(b) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, paragraph 84.05(b) of the
Inland Rules Act. In addition, the Certificate of Alternative
Compliance allows for the horizontal separation of the forward and aft
masthead lights to deviate from the requirements of Annex I, paragraph
3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules
Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: June 8, 2010.
RS Keister,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections Section, By Direction
of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-15275 Filed 6-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P