[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28320-28323]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13007]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0012]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 12 individuals
for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will
enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without
meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0012 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 12 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber.
    In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the
Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting
standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to
meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16,
1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998,
following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing
exemptions made by Sec.  4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9,
1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures
established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon
application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past
three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in
evaluating future safety, according to several research studies
designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of
these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future
performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic
violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-
1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving
performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better
than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345,
March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers
demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a
conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying
conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to
have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate
safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber,

Donald C., ``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple
Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American
Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record
Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded
that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and
nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study
used three consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of
drivers in the first two years with their experiences in the final
year.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Mark F. Besco

    Mr. Besco, 27, has had a macular scar in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``He has no color deficiency in either eye and in our
professional medical opinion he has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Besco
reported that he has driven straight trucks for two years, accumulating
13,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for two years,
accumulating 20,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His
driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

William T. Cummins

    Mr. Cummins, 71, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to a traumatic incident in 1979. The visual acuity in his right eye is
no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, ``It is my medical opinion
that Mr. Cummins has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Cummins reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 37,500 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 1.56
million miles. He holds a Class DMA CDL from Kentucky. His driving
record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Aaron L. Fox

    Mr. Fox, 34, had his left eye enucleated due to toxoplasmosis in
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``I believe that Mr. Fox has sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Fox reported that he has driven straight trucks for nine
years, accumulating 450,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for
one year, accumulating 117,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
His driving record for the last three years shows one crash, for which
he was not cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Ryan N. Goyne

    Mr. Goyne, 37, has retinal scarring in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an
examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, ``I feel Mr. Goyne has
adequate vision to perform tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.''
    Mr. Goyne reported that he has driven straight trucks for six
years, accumulating 36,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Arkansas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Eric M. Kohrs

    Mr. Kohrs, 26, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, ``In my
opinion, given Eric's total visual field OU and BCVA OU Eric should be
able to perform the required visual tasks to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Kohrs reported that he has driven straight trucks for
four years, accumulating 10,400 miles. He holds an operator's license
from Illinois. His driving record for the last three years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael P. Mazza

    Mr. Mazza, 51, has had a macular scar in his left eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/10, and in his left eye, 20/
150. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, ``Mr.
Mazza has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Mazza reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 32 years, accumulating 1.6 million miles and
tractor-trailer combinations for 16 years, accumulating 800,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last
three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

James L. Okonek

    Mr. Okonek, 54, had his left eye enucleated due to a tumor in 2006.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no
light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist
stated, ``It is my medical opinion that Mr. Okonek has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Okonek reported that he has driven straight trucks for
14 years, accumulating 1.82 million miles, tractor-trailer combinations
for five years, accumulating 50,000 miles, and buses for five years,
accumulating 60,000 miles. He holds a Class ABCDM CDL from Wisconsin.
His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jeffrey S. Rockhill

    Mr. Rockhill, 37, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist
stated, ``Jeff has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Rockhill reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 34,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 17 years, accumulating 51,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas. His driving record for the
last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Travis D. Summerville

    Mr. Summerville, 38, has aphakia in his left eye due to a traumatic
incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and
in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2018, his
optometrist stated, ``Mr. Summerville has sufficient vision to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Summerville reported that he has driven
straight trucks for three years, accumulating 50,400 miles. He holds an
operator's license from Illinois. His driving record for the last three
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Lora D. Swindall

    Ms. Swindall, 50, has had amblyopia in her right eye since birth.
The visual acuity in her right eye is 20/200, and in her left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2018, her optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion, Ms. Swindall's vision is sufficient for safely
operating a motorized commercial vehicle.'' Ms. Swindall reported that
she has driven straight trucks for 12 years,

accumulating 300,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 12
years, accumulating 780,000 miles. She holds a Class AM CDL from
Alabama. Her driving record for the last three years shows one crash,
which she was not cited for, and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Francis J. Toth

    Mr. Toth, 61, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2012. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination
in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my professional opinion, Mr.
Toth does have sufficient vision to perform the driving test required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Toth reported that he has driven
tractor-trailer combinations for 38 years, accumulating 2.85 million
miles. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving
record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Joseph A. Zaccaro

    Mr. Zaccaro, 77, has had a chorioretinal scar in his left eye since
1992. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30, and in his left eye,
20/300. Following an examination in 2018, his ophthalmologist stated,
``In Dr. Mock's professional opinion, the patient has sufficient vision
to operated [sic] a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Zaccaro reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 40 years, accumulating 600,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 600,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Alabama. His driving record for the
last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

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 and material
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-2018-0012 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-2018-0012 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: June 11, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-13007 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43087-43089]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15608]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0331]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Confluence of James River and Appomattox River,
Hopewell, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable
waters of the confluence of the James River and the Appomattox River in
Hopewell, Virginia. This safety zone will restrict vessel movement
within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks barge during the fireworks
display for the City of Hopewell centennial celebration. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on the
surrounding navigable waters during the fireworks display.

DATES: This rule is effective and will be enforced from 8 p.m. through
10:45 p.m. on July 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0331 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Barbara Wilk, Waterways Management Division Chief,
Sector Hampton Roads, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good

cause finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because
information about the fireworks on July 2, 2016 was not received by the
Coast Guard until recently, which provided insufficient time to allow
for an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. The Coast Guard
will provide advance notifications to users of the affected waterway
via marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Due to the need for the
safety zone to be in place on July 2, 2016, to protect life, property
and the environment; therefore, a 30-day notice is impracticable.
Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the safety zone's
intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels, and enhancing
public and maritime safety.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Hampton Roads (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the fireworks display starting on
July 2, 2016, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 700-foot
radius of the fireworks barge. This rule is needed to protect the
participants, patrol vessels, and other vessels transiting the
navigable waters of the confluence of the James River and the
Appomattox River, in Hopewell, VA, from hazards associated with a
fireworks display. The potential hazards to mariners within the safety
zone include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles,
and falling hot embers or other debris.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Captain of the Port of Hampton Roads is establishing a safety
zone on the confluence of the James River and the Appomattox River in
Hopewell, VA. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters
within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks display barge location at
position 37[deg]19'27.74'' N., 077[deg]16'45.22'' W. (NAD 1983). This
safety zone still allows for navigation on the waterway. This safety
zone will be established and enforced from 8 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on
July 2, 2016. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during the
effective period. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his Designated representative, no person or
vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
    The Captain of the Port will give notice of the enforcement of the
safety zone by all appropriate means to provide the widest
dissemination of notice to the affected segments of the public. This
includes publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Marine
Information Broadcasts.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will
impact a small designated area of the confluence of the James River and
the Appomattox River in Hopewell, VA for less than 3 hours. Moreover,
the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 3 hours that will
prohibit entry within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks barge. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0331 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0331  Safety Zone, Confluence of James River and
Appomattox River; Hopewell, VA.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section--
    Captain of the Port means the Commander, Sector Hampton Roads.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant or petty officer who has been authorized to act on the behalf
of the Captain of the Port.
    Participants mean individuals and vessels involved in explosives
training.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters in
the confluence of the James River and the Appomattox River, within a
700-foot radius of the fireworks display barge in approximate position
37[deg]19'27.74'' N., 077[deg]16'45.22'' W. (NAD 1983).
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the
general regulations governing safety zones in Sec.  165.23.
    (2) With the exception of participants, entry into or remaining in
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representative.
    (3) All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is
implemented are to depart the zone immediately.
    (4) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated
representative can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) The Coast Guard and designated security vessels enforcing the
safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13
(165.65 Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
    (6) This section applies to all persons or vessels wishing to
transit through the safety zone except participants and vessels that
are engaged in the following operations:
    (i) Enforcing laws;
    (ii) Servicing aids to navigation, and
    (iii) Emergency response vessels.
    (7) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m.
through 10:45 p.m. on July 2, 2016.

    Dated: June 15, 2016.
Christopher S. Keane,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2016-15608 Filed 6-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51897-51899]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24252]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81998; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

November 2, 2017.
    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 October 30, 2017, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's
principal office, 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 the list of MIAX Select Symbols \3\
contained in the Priority Customer Rebate Program (the ``Program'') \4\
of the Exchange's Fee Schedule to 1. delete the symbol ``SUNE''
associated with SunEdison, Inc. (``SunEdison'') and 2. replace the
symbol ``BBRY'' with ``BB'' associated with BlackBerry Limited
(``BlackBerry'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``MIAX Select Symbols'' means options overlying
AAL, AAPL, AIG, AMAT, AMD, AMZN, BA, BABA, BBRY, BIDU, BP, C, CAT,
CBS, CELG, CLF, CVX, DAL, EBAY, EEM, FB, FCX, GE, GILD, GLD, GM,
GOOGL, GPRO, HAL, HTZ, INTC, IWM, JCP, JNJ, JPM, KMI, KO, MO, MRK,
NFLX, NOK, NQ, ORCL, PBR, PFE, PG, QCOM, QQQ, RIG, S, SPY, SUNE, T,
TSLA, USO, VALE, VXX, WBA, WFC, WMB, WY, X, XHB, XLE, XLF, XLP, XOM,
and XOP.
    \4\ See section 1)a)iii) of the Fee Schedule for a complete
description of the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange initially created the list of MIAX Select Symbols on
March 1, 2014,\5\ and has added and removed option classes from that
list since that

time.\6\ On April 26, 2016, the New York Stock Exchange announced that
it was delisting SunEdison since it was no longer suitable for listing.
SunEdison had announced on the same day that it and certain of its
domestic and international subsidiaries had filed voluntary petitions
for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71700 (March 12,
2014), 79 FR 15188 (March 18, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-13).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 8109 (June 26,
2017), 82 FR 29962 (June 30, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-29); 79301
(November 14, 2016), 81 FR 81854 (November 18, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-
42); 74291(February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9841 (February 24, 2015) (SR-
MIAX-2015-09); 74288 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9837 (February 24,
2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-08); 73328 (October 9, 2014), 79 FR 62230
(October 16, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-50); 72567 (July 8, 2014), 79 FR
40818 (July 14, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-34); 72356 (June 10, 2014), 79
FR 34384 (June 16, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-26); 71700 (March 12, 2014),
79 FR 15188 (March 18, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-13).
    \7\ See the press release located at http://ir.theice.com/press/press-releases/nyse-regulation/2016/042116suspensionrelease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, the Exchange delisted SunEdison options. Accordingly,
the Exchange is amending its Fee Schedule to delete the symbol SUNE
from the list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the Program to
correspond with the delisting. This amendment is intended to eliminate
any potential confusion and to make it clear to market participants
that SunEdison will not be a MIAX Select Symbol contained in the
Program as SunEdison options are no longer listed on the Exchange.
    BlackBerry recently announced that it was transferring its listing
from the Nasdaq Global Select Market to the New York Stock Exchange
and, as a result, BlackBerry changed its symbol from ``BBRY'' and is
now trading under the new symbol ``BB'' effective October 16, 2017.\8\
The Exchange is amending its Fee Schedule to change BlackBerry's symbol
in the MIAX Select Symbols from ``BBRY'' to ``BB'' to correspond with
this change. This amendment is designed to ensure that there is no
confusion amongst market participants that BlackBerry, under its new
ticker, will continue to remain in the MIAX Selected Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See the press release located at https://us.blackberry.com/company/newsroom/press?id=21b4315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in that it is an
equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among
Exchange members and other persons using its facilities, and 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\11\ in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms 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)(4).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposal to delete the symbol SUNE from the list
of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the Program and to change the
symbol from BBRY to BB is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act
because the proposed changes will allow for continued benefit to
investors by providing them an updated list of MIAX Select Symbols
contained in the Program on the Fee Schedule. In particular, the
proposal to change the BlackBerry symbol to its new designation is
consistent with the Act because the proposed change is merely updating
the corresponding symbol to allow for BlackBerry to continue to remain
in the MIAX Select Symbols.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to amend an option class
that qualifies for the credit for transactions in MIAX Select Symbols
is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Exchange
believes that the Program itself is reasonably designed because it
incentivizes providers of Priority Customer \12\ order flow to send
that Priority Customer order flow to the Exchange in order to receive a
credit in a manner that enables the Exchange to improve its overall
competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market
participants. The Program, which provides increased incentives in
certain tiers in high volume select symbols, is also reasonably
designed to increase the competitiveness of the Exchange with other
options exchanges that also offer increased incentives to higher volume
symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity
that 1. is not a broker or dealer in securities, and 2. does not
place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that its proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it will apply equally to all
Priority Customer orders in MIAX Select Symbols in the Program. All
similarly situated Priority Customer orders in MIAX Select Symbols are
subject to the same rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is
offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change is a not a competitive filing but rather is designed to
update the list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the Program in
order to avoid potential confusion on the part of market participants.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \14\ thereunder.
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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MIAX-2017-45 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-MIAX-2017-45. 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 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-MIAX-2017-45 and should be
submitted on or before November 29, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24252 Filed 11-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 2, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31338-31342]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12932]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2015-0307; FRL-9928-38-Region 10]

Idaho: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program
Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Idaho has applied to the EPA for final authorization of
certain changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. RCRA allows the EPA
to authorize State hazardous waste management programs if the EPA finds
that such programs are equivalent to and consistent with the Federal
program and provide adequate enforcement of compliance. The EPA has
reviewed Idaho's application, has preliminarily determined these
changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization, and is proposing to authorize the State's changes.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
July 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
RCRA-2015-0307 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop AWT-150, Seattle, Washington 98101.
     Hand Delivery: Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region 10,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop AWT-150, Seattle, Washington
98101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the normal business
hours of operation; special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-
2015-0307. The 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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the 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 the 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
through www.regulations.gov, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
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. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 10 Library,
1200 Sixth Avenue, First Floor Lobby, Seattle, Washington 98101. The
EPA Region 10 Library is open from 9:00 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00
p.m. PST Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA
Region 10 Library telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region
10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop AWT-150, Seattle,
Washington 98101, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or phone number
(206) 553-2416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Proposed Authorization Revision

A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from the EPA under
RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous
waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes,
States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize their
changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or
State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain
other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs
because of changes to the EPA's regulations codified in Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273,
and 279.

B. What decisions have we made in this proposed rule concerning
authorization?

    The EPA has preliminarily determined that Idaho's application to
revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory
requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we are proposing to grant
Idaho final authorization to operate its hazardous waste management
program with the changes described in the authorization application.
Idaho will have responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian
country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described
in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal
requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the
EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA, and which are not less
stringent than existing requirements, take effect in authorized States
before the States are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA
will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Idaho, including
issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

C. What will be the effect if Idaho is authorized for these changes?

    If Idaho is authorized for these changes, a facility in Idaho
subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized State
requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements to
comply with RCRA. Additionally, such facilities will have to comply
with any applicable Federal requirements, such as, for example, HSWA
regulations issued by the EPA for which the State has not received
authorization, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by
authorized State requirements. Idaho continues to have enforcement
authorities and responsibilities under its State hazardous waste
management program for violations of the requirements of this program.
However, the EPA retains authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008,
3013, and 7003, which includes, among others, the authority to:
     Conduct inspections; which may include but are not limited
to requiring monitoring, tests, analyses, and/or reports;

     Enforce RCRA requirements which may include but are not
limited to suspending, terminating, modifying and/or revoking permits;
and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
    The action to approve these revisions will not impose additional
requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for
which Idaho is requesting authorization are already effective under
State law and are not changed by the act of authorization.

D. What happens if the EPA receives comments on this action?

    If the EPA receives comments on this action, we will address those
comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to
comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you should do so
at this time.

E. What has Idaho previously been authorized for?

    Idaho initially received final authorization for its hazardous
waste management program effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, March
26, 1990). Subsequently, the EPA authorized revisions to the State's
program effective June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6, 1992), August 10,
1992 (57 FR 24757, June 11, 1992), June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April
12, 1995), January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), July 1,
2002 (67 FR 44069, July 1, 2002), March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322, March
10, 2004), July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22, 2005), February 26,
2007 (72 FR 8283, February 26, 2007), December 23, 2008 (73 FR 78647,
December 23, 2008) and July 11, 2012 (77 FR 34229, June 11, 2012).

F. What changes are we proposing?

    On February 11, 2015, Idaho submitted a program revision
application to the EPA requesting authorization for all delegable
Federal hazardous waste regulations codified as of July 1, 2012,
incorporated by reference in IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> et seq., which were
adopted and effective in the State of Idaho on April 4, 2013. This
authorization revision request includes the following federal rules for
which Idaho is being authorized for the first time: Removal of
Saccharin and its Salts from the Lists of Hazardous Constituents,
Hazardous Wastes, and Hazardous Substances, 75 FR 78918, December 17,
2010; Technical Corrections to the Academics Lab Rule, 75 FR 79304,
December 20, 2010; Revisions to the Treatment Standards for Carbamate
Wastes, 76 FR 34147, June, 13, 2011; Hazardous Waste Manifest Printing
Specifications Corrections, 76 FR 36363, June 22, 2011; and Hazardous
Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications Rule, 77 FR 22229, April
13, 2012. The EPA proposes to revise the state's authorized hazardous
waste program in its entirety through July 1, 2013. There were no final
federal RCRA hazardous waste regulations promulgated by the EPA from
July 1, 2012 to July 1, 2013. Notice and an opportunity for the public
to comment on this proposed authorization revision is being provided at
this time.

G. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

    Under RCRA section 3009, the EPA may not authorize State law that
is less stringent than the Federal program. Any State law that is less
stringent does not supplant the Federal regulations. State law that is
broader in scope than the Federal program requirements is not
authorized. State law that is equivalent to, and State law that is more
stringent than, the Federal program may be authorized, in which case
those provisions are enforceable by the EPA. This section discusses
certain rules where the EPA has made the finding that Idaho's program
is more stringent and will be authorized, and discusses certain
portions of the Federal program that are not delegable to the State
because of the Federal government's special role in foreign policy
matters and because of national concerns that arise with certain
decisions.
    The EPA does not authorize States to administer Federal import and
export functions in any section of the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations. Even though States do not receive authorization to
administer the Federal government's import and export functions, found
in 40 CFR part 262, subparts E, F and H, State programs are required to
adopt the Federal import and export provisions to maintain their
equivalency with the Federal program. Idaho amended its import and
export laws to include the Federal rule on Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) Requirements; Export Shipments of
Spend Lead-Acid Batteries (75 FR 1236, January 8, 2010). The State's
rule is found at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>. The EPA will continue to implement
those requirements directly through the RCRA regulations.
    The EPA has found that Idaho's Emergency Notification Requirements,
(IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.02), are more stringent than the Federal program.
This is because the State's regulations require that the State
Communications Center be contacted along with the Federal Center. The
EPA has found the State's statutory requirement requiring hazardous
waste generators and commercial hazardous waste disposal facilities to
file annual hazardous waste generation reports, Idaho Code Section 39-
4411(4) and 39-4411(5), to be more stringent than the Federal program.
As the EPA can authorize rules that are determined to be more stringent
than the Federal program, this requirement is authorized.

H. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Idaho will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for
which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. If
the EPA issued permits prior to authorizing Idaho for these revisions,
these permits would continue in force until the effective date of the
State's issuance or denial of a State hazardous waste permit, at which
time the EPA would modify the existing EPA permit to expire at an
earlier date, terminate the existing EPA permit for cause, or allow the
existing EPA permit to otherwise expire by its terms, except for those
facilities located in Indian Country. The EPA will not issue new
permits or new portions of permits for provisions for which Idaho is
authorized after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will
continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which
Idaho is not authorized.

I. How would authorizing Idaho for these revisions affect Indian
country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Idaho?

    Idaho is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in
Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country includes:
    1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations
within or abutting the State of Idaho;
    2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
    3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation, that
qualifies as Indian country. Therefore, this action has no effect on
Indian country. The EPA will continue to implement and administer the
RCRA program on these lands.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed rule seeks to revise the State of Idaho's authorized
hazardous waste program pursuant to section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no
requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. This
proposed rule complies

with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    This action will authorize revisions to the federally approved
hazardous waste program in Idaho. This type of action is exempt from
review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This proposed rule does not
establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements for
the regulated community.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of
this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business, as codified in the Small Business Size Regulations at
13 CFR part 121; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field. The EPA has determined that
this proposed action will not have a significant impact on small
entities because the proposed rule will only have the effect of
authorizing pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. After
considering the economic impacts of this action, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local
or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore this action is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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. This rule proposes to authorize
pre-existing State rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this action. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action, the EPA did consult with officials of the State of
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality in developing this action. In
the spirit of E.O. 13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote
communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from state and
local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action proposes to authorize pre-existing
State rules. Thus, the EPA has determined that Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule. The EPA specifically solicits comment on
this proposed action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the E.O. has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is
not subject to E.O. 13045 because it proposes to authorize pre-existing
State rules.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to
provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This
proposed action does not involve technical standards. Therefore the EPA
is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994)
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This action proposes to authorize pre-existing State rules
which are equivalent to, and no less stringent than, existing federal
requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority

    This proposed action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: May 18, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2015-12932 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P