  WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WPAC)
Minutes of April 26, 2016 Meeting
U.S. Department of Labor
Frances Perkins Building
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC
The meeting of the Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee (WPAC) was called to order by Chairman Emily Spieler at 9:18 a.m., Tuesday, April 26, 2016.

The following members and U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) staff were present:

NAME
SECTOR
REPRESENTED
TITLE & ORGANIZATION
                             Emily Spieler
(Chair)
                                    Public
Edwin W. Hadley Professor of Law, Northeastern School of Law
                                Richard Moberly
                                    Public
Associate Dean, University of Nebraska
                                Jonathan Brock
                                    Public
Emeritus Faculty Member (Retired), University of Washington
                                 David Eherts
                                  Management
Vice President Global EHS, Allergan, Inc.
                                Gregory Keating
                                  Management
Shareholder, Co-chair of the Whistleblowing Practice Group and Member of the Board of Directors, Littler Mendelson P.C.
                                Marcia Narine*
                                  Management
Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University School of Law; Compliance Consultant, MDO Partners
                                   Kim Gaylo
                                  Management
Global HSE Associate Director, Proctor & Gamble
                               Sylvia Johnson**
                                     Labor
Deputy Legislative Director, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
                                  Eric Frumin
                                     Labor
Health and Safety Director, Change to Win
                                 Nancy Lessin
                                     Labor
Program Director, United Steelworkers' Tony Mazzocchi Center for Health, Safety and Environmental Education
                                 JJ Rosenbaum
                                     Labor
National Guestworker Alliance
                                 Lezlie Perrin
                            OSHA State Plan States
Appeals, Audit and Discrimination Senior Program Manager, Department of Labor and Industries Division of Occupational Safety and Health, State of Washington
                              Rina Tucker Harris
                                Federal Agency
Enforcement Attorney, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
                                 Eric Bachman
                                Federal Agency
US Office of Special Counsel
                               Robert W. Miller
                                Federal Agency
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
                                Brian Broecker
                                     OSHA
WPAC Counsel, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL
                               MaryAnn Garrahan
                                     OSHA
Director, Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs, USDOL OSHA
                                 Anthony Rosa
                                     OSHA
Deputy Director, Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs, Designated Federal Officer for WPAC, USDOL OSHA
* Conferenced in by telephone.
** Arrived late.

Approximately 20 members of the public, including OSHA and USDOL staff, were in attendance.

Introductory Remarks
Emily Spieler, WPAC Chair, opened the meeting and asked WPAC members, DWPP staff, and attendees in the audience to introduce themselves.  Chair Spieler welcomed the Committee's new members, and noted the reappointment of several others.  Chair Spieler also stated that the Department of Labor published a Federal Register notice on April 1, 2016, soliciting nominations for new WPAC members, and that nominations would be accepted until the end of May 2016.   Chair Spieler then explained that WPAC has two new subcommittees that met for the first time the day before the meeting, and invited them to report out.

Outreach Work Group Report
J.J. Rosenbaum, Chair of the Outreach Work Group, began by reading the group's charge, and explained that the group viewed the charge as having three parts:  the phrases and concepts that help with outreach; the types of information, guidance products, and communications that carry those phrases and make them effective; and the organizations that would be most helpful to receive those products.

Ms. Rosenbaum stated that the group acknowledged that the work of the former best practices work group would be important to the group's conversation, and that the group discussed two types of employers: those that are willing to learn best practices and those that are unwilling.  The group also recognized that they should discuss how outreach can be furthered by collaborating with OSHA's safety and health enforcement program and partner agencies.

Further, Ms. Rosenbaum reported that the group discussed reviewing the existing outreach tools that are available, including looking at website traffic, and pulling together research showing that retaliation costs employers money, in addition to being the right thing to do.  The group also discussed the legal overlays that might incent employers to establish anti-retaliation programs (e.g., the new executive order on federal contracting); opportunities with large supply chain employers to encourage the adoption of best practices throughout their supply chains; looking at OSHA's and partner agencies' touch points with employers to identify areas in need of outreach; the idea of targeted outreach; and products that highlight concrete experiences and stories from employers and employees.

Eric Frumin, a member of the work group, added that the group was interested in reviewing any information that OSHA may have regarding the current practices and programs in place at the employers with which OSHA interacts.  Gregory Keating, another member, noted that he viewed the outreach work group as furthering the work of the former best practices work group.

Training Work Group Report
Marcia Narine, Chair of the Training Work Group, reported out for the group via telephone.  She explained that, at the group's first meeting, Anthony Rosa, from OSHA's Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs (DWPP), and Anthony Towey, from the OSHA Training Institute, provided background to the group on OSHA's whistleblower investigator training program.

 Ms. Narine explained that the work group will look at how OSHA's training courses should be delivered (e.g., webinar or in person), and summarized the whistleblower training courses that OSHA currently offers, as well as those that Mr. Rosa and Mr. Towey said were planned for the future.

Ms. Narine reported that the group discussed how OSHA's training program will be responsive to the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) September 2015 report on the whistleblower program, and added that the group was not sure that OSHA's training program could address the investigation timeliness issues that OIG identified, as they viewed that as more of a resource issue.

Ms. Narine summarized the priorities for the training work group, which include identifying learner takeaways from OSHA's whistleblower training courses; helping OSHA develop more technical courses (such as an advanced transportation course); finding shared resources for investigators to study independently; looking at the opportunity for training investigators on issues such as emotional intelligence, empathy without sympathy, and cultural differences; and looking at lessons learned from the case reviews that are conducted by DWPP.

Ms. Narine also clarified that looking at external training for employers, unions, and organizations is not currently within the work group's charge.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Presentation
Sean McKessy, the Chief of SEC's Office of the Whistleblower, gave a presentation on his office's enforcement of the anti-retaliation protections included in the Dodd-Frank Act.  Mr. McKessy explained that the Dodd-Frank Act's anti-retaliation protections do not replace the retaliation protections and remedies that are available to securities law whistleblowers under the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX), but rather provide another mechanism for whistleblowers to seek redress for retaliation.  Mr. McKessy discussed the history of his office, the features of the anti-retaliation provision that SEC enforces, and the efforts taken to educate and train SEC staff to investigate retaliation claims.

Mr. McKessy also discussed the several legal issues arising under whistleblower protection laws; for example, the SEC believes that internal reporting should be protected activity, although federal appellate courts are currently split on whether solely internal reporting is protected or not.  Mr. McKessy explained that whistleblowers are not required to first report their concerns internally before filing with the SEC.  Additionally, Mr. McKessy discussed the issue of "pre-retaliation", where employers attempt to preclude employees from reporting possible securities law violations to the SEC in the future.

Mr. McKessy responded to several questions and comments from members of the Committee on a variety of topics, including the structure of the SEC's enforcement program, OSHA and the SEC's communication regarding retaliation cases, and the statute of limitations for filing under the Dodd-Frank Act's anti-retaliation protections.

Wage and Hour Presentation
Due to time restraints, a scheduled presentation from the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division was postponed until the next meeting.

Break

Railroad Workers United Presentation
Prior to the meeting, the Railroad Workers United (RWU) requested time to present concerns to WPAC regarding retaliatory practices in the railroad industry, and particularly the actions and policies of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF).  Chair Spieler first asked if Charles Shewmake, BNSF's Vice President and General Counsel, was in attendance, as Mr. Shewmake submitted a letter to WPAC prior to the meeting regarding RWU's request.  Mr. Shewmake was not in attendance, and Chair Spieler asked that his letter be marked as an exhibit.  Mr. Shewmake's letter was subsequently marked as Exhibit 1, and RWU's letter requesting to speak at the meeting was marked as Exhibit 2.

WPAC then heard a presentation from three individuals appearing on behalf of RWU: Kelly Rookiard, Mike Elliot, and Jeff Kurtz   Ms. Rookiard read a statement to the Committee that discussed the termination of her husband from BNSF and her recommendations for how railroad industry whistleblowers could be better protected.  Mr. Elliot, a former BNSF employee and whistleblower complainant, and Mr. Kurtz, a retired railroad worker and union representative, also offered recommendations for improving whistleblower investigations and curtailing retaliatory practices in the industry.  Written statements from Ms. Rookiard, Mr. Elliot, and Mr. Kurtz were subsequently marked as Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, respectively.

Public Comment Period
Before proceeding with the public comment period, Chair Spieler explained that WPAC received a letter from a member of the public, Don Davis, and asked the Committee to read it so that it could be discussed at a future time.  The letter was marked as Exhibit 6.

William Wahoff, from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, stated that employers are not very familiar with whistleblower retaliation laws or OSHA's whistleblower retaliation investigation procedures, so he suggests that OSHA do more to acquaint employers with the laws and procedures in opening conferences.  He also suggested that OSHA conduct all settlement negotiations using neutral mediators, rather than investigators, because it presents a better appearance.

Larry Mann, counsel to the Academy of Rail Labor Attorneys and rail safety coordinator for the transportation division of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, Transportation Union, made several recommendations and requests regarding the Federal Railroad Safety Act's (FRSA) whistleblower provision.  He asked for a clarification of the statute of limitations for whistleblower complaints filed under the FRSA, and recommended that the statute be amended to make preliminary reinstatement orders enforceable.  Mr. Mann also stated that employers have policies requiring that, when an employee is incapacitated and needs an ambulance, only the employer can call for the ambulance, and recommended that the statute be amended to allow anyone to call.  Mr. Mann also requested a statutory change to counter the railroad's legal position that employees are not able to access the courts once an ALJ rules against an employee.  Last, Mr. Mann stated that he believes that OSHA needs subpoena power.

Larry Halprin, a partner at law firm Keller and Heckman LLP and counsel for the Great American Insurance Company, raised concerns about OSHA's discouragement of employer incentive programs, explaining that the employers he represents have tried various measures to improve safety, but have found that the only ones that work are incentive programs.  He stated that while employers have found incentive programs to be effective, OSHA has not produced data that would justify discouraging or prohibiting such programs.

Mr. Halprin fielded questions from several Committee members, including multiple questions and comments on the data that was relied upon in the written comments that he submitted prior to the meeting.  For example, Ms. Lessin asked why Mr. Halprin's comments did not discuss studies on incentive programs that were previously published in peer reviewed journals.  She also remarked on the comments' treatment of the Government Accountability Office's finding in 2012 that data gathered from OSHA's National Emphasis Program was inadequate to assess the effectiveness of safety incentive programs and other workplace safety and health policies on injury and illness reporting.

Additionally, Chair Spieler asked whether there have been, or if Mr. Halprin's organization would be interested in, direct-to-worker surveys conducted by an independent or study organization that asked workers about their perception of how the safety incentives work.  Mr. Halprin expressed agreement that he would be interested in such information, but would want to know how the survey would be conducted.

The written comments and attachments that Mr. Halprin submitted prior to the meeting were subsequently marked as Exhibits 7A-7F.

Lunch Break

Remarks of Deputy Secretary of Labor Chris Lu and Assistant Secretary for OSHA Dr. David Michaels
Deputy Secretary Lu thanked the Committee on behalf of Secretary Perez.  He noted that whistleblower is a high priority for this administration.

Dr. Michaels thanked the Committee, and OSHA and SOL staff, for their work.  He discussed several projects that DWPP has been working on or has recently completed, including reviewing the comments that OSHA received on the Best Practices document, integrating the Reasonable Cause memorandum into the whistleblower investigations manual, expanding and strengthening OSHA's training courses for investigators, issuing new rules on food safety, and updating OSHA's online whistleblower complaint form.

Dr. Michaels answered questions from Committee members regarding the outlook for OSHA's budget, legislative activity, OSHA's efforts to coordinate its enforcement activities, and (with assistance from Mr. Rosa) OSHA's coordination with partner agencies.  Chair Spieler also brought to Dr. Michaels' attention points that were raised during the public comment period by Mr. Wahoff (regarding employers' familiarity with OSHA's investigative process) and by the RWU representatives (regarding the effectiveness of OSHA's agreement with BNSF).

DWPP Update by Mary Ann Garrahan, DWPP Director

Ms. Garrahan thanked the Committee for its service, and explained that the Directorate's responsibilities include promulgating regulations, establishing national performance measures and policy and procedures, supporting the regions, and developing and conduct outreach.  She added that DWPP is also tasked with running the administrative review process for complainant-requested reviews of regional determinations of investigations conducted under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act.

Ms. Garrahan updated the committee on the status of DWPP's various activities, including analysis of web traffic on DWPP's website, its efforts to strengthen the training of investigators and managers, administrative reviews of Section 11(c) investigations, promulgation of several procedural regulations, updates to the whistleblower investigations manual, and coordination with partner agencies.  She discussed recent enforcement cases of note, and also discussed DWPP's outreach efforts, including the development of wallet cards, a whistleblower rights card, and the Best Practices document.  Ms. Garrahan also updated the Committee on the whistleblower program's transition to a new case management database.

Ms. Lessin requested, and Chair Spieler seconded, that DWPP provide an update at the next meeting on how OSHA's Alternative Dispute Resolution program is working.  WPAC members also discussed with Ms. Garrahan the possibility of providing feedback on OSHA's outreach materials, and OSHA's process for revising, and soliciting feedback on, the draft Best Practices document that WPAC's best practices work group developed.  Mr. Frumin commented to emphasize the importance of finding ways to take a proactive and preventative approach to whistleblower retaliation.

Public Comment Period (Continued)

Rick Inclima, Director of Safety and Education for the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division, provided a statement to WPAC regarding 49 CFR § 209.303, which Mr. Inclima explained provides a mechanism for the FRA to institute disqualification proceedings against employees in safety sensitive positions or managers who have oversight responsibility for those safety sensitive employees.  Mr. Inclima suggested that OSHA coordinate with the FRA to use this authority to hold employees and managers who repeatedly violate railroad workers' whistleblower rights accountable.

Ms. Lessin asked if this mechanism had been used in the past, and Mr. Inclima responded that it had been used against railroad employees in safety sensitive positions, but was not aware of any cases against managers, though he has submitted a FOIA request to the FRA on this question.

Wrap up

Chair Spieler opened the floor to members to suggest topics for future meetings and any other observations or questions regarding the work groups

David Eherts raised the issue of WPAC's ability to have a dialogue with OSHA within the bounds of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and Chair Spieler commented on the limitations that FACA imposes on the Committee's communications with Agency.
Mr. Frumin suggested that WPAC discuss the coordination between OSHA's whistleblower program and its safety and health enforcement program, including a joint discussion with OSHA representatives on how the enforcement programs can effectively work together.  He also discussed the implications of the forthcoming rules on federal contracting pursuant to a recent executive order.

Mr. Keating requested that OSHA coordinate with the Outreach Work Group to help plan outreach events for when the Best Practices document is published.
Ms. Lessin requested that WPAC continue the discussion of whistleblower protection issues in the railroad industry.

Chair Spieler asked that DWPP follow up on the issues presented in the railroad presentation and report back to the Committee.  She also suggested for the next meeting that DWPP report out on the ADR program, that the Wage and Hour Division give a presentation, that the whistleblower enforcement issues that Mr. Frumin raised be addressed, and that time for the two work groups be included on the agenda.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27763-27765]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11350]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-124-000; CP11-40-000; CP10-34-000]

East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed West Peetz Well Plan
Amendment and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the West Peetz Well Plan Amendment
involving construction and operation of facilities by East Cheyenne Gas
Storage, LLC (East Cheyenne) in Logan County, Colorado. The Commission
will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether
the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project amendment. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please
note that the scoping period will close on June 2, 2012.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The proposed project would amend the East Cheyenne Gas Storage
Project, which consists of construction and operation of a natural gas
storage facility in two nearly depleted oil production fields in Logan
County, Colorado. The project was originally authorized by the
Commission on August 2, 2010 under Docket No. CP10-34-000, and amended
on April 12, 2011 under Docket No. CP11-40-000. On January 31, 2012,
under Docket No. CP12-35-000, the Commission further amended the
certificate by revising the maximum reservoir pressure for the D Sands
zone in the West Peetz Field. East Cheyenne is not seeking to revise
the maximum reservoir pressure and therefore does not seek to amend the
certificate issued to East Cheyenne in Docket No. CP12-35-000.
    Following issuance of the August 2 and April 12 Orders, East
Cheyenne further evaluated the West Peetz D Sands Formation. Based on
the findings, East Cheyenne determined that they should modify the
proposed number and location of wells, in addition to well design and
installation methods, to develop the authorized working gas capacity
for optimal performance. The proposed amendment would involve
reconfiguration of the injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells and associated
piping, addition of a produced water disposal well and associated
piping, and two monitoring wells, and an increase in the amount of
cushion gas capacity. Additionally, East Cheyenne would no longer use
ten of the originally proposed access roads. The proposed amendment
consists of the following changes to the East Cheyenne Gas Storage
Project:
     Relocate and convert four currently certificated wells
from horizontal to vertical I/W wells;
     Construct four additional I/W wells, three of which would
be vertical and the fourth a slant well;
     Plug and abandon two previously certificated and operating
I/W wells and replace them with two new vertical I/W wells;
     Install two additional observation wells and one
additional produced water disposal well;
     Reconfigure related natural gas lateral pipelines; and
     Install and reconfigure related produced water mainline,
laterals, and disposal pipelines.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The certificated East Cheyenne Gas Storage Project is currently
storing

natural gas in nearly depleted reservoirs that underlie an area of
approximately 2,360 acres, with an additional 3,400 acres serving as a
storage buffer area. The revised facilities would be located in
previously surveyed areas within the project site. Construction of the
revised facilities would require approximately 501.9 acres of land, an
increase of 26 acres from the previous project total of 485.8 acres.
Following construction, East Cheyenne would maintain about 200.2 acres
as permanent facilities and right-of-way; a decrease of 1.3 acres from
the previous project total of 201.5 acres. The remaining 301.7 acres of
land would be restored and allowed to revert to its former use.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider comments filed during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project amendment under
these general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project amendment, and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section below.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project amendment. Your comments should
focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives,
and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more
specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that
your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your
comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before
June 2, 2012.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP12-124-000) with your
submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing'';
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes Federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary

link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP12-
124). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: May 3, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11350 Filed 5-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase and the Genetic Material Necessary for

Its Production in All Plants; Exemption From the Requirement of a

Tolerance On All Raw Agricultural Commodities

[Federal Register: April 11, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 70)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 17717-17720]

[DOCID:fr11ap97_dat-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-300463; FRL-5597-3]

RIN No. 2070-AB78

Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase and the Genetic Material

Necessary for Its Production in All Plants; Exemption From the

Requirement of a Tolerance On All Raw Agricultural Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document establishes an exemption from the requirement of

a tolerance for residues of the plant-pesticide inert ingredients

Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase (PAT) and the genetic material

necessary for its production in all plants when used as plant-

pesticides in or on all raw agricultural commodities (RACs). Dekalb

Genetics Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as amended by the Food Quality

Protection Act of l996 (FQPA) requesting the exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to

establish a maximum permissible level for residues of this plant-

pesticides in or on all RACS.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective on April 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP-300463], may be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and hearing requests

shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O.

Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the

docket control number and submitted to: Public Response and Program

Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing

requests to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway., Arlington,

VA. A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk may also be submitted electronically to the OPP by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Copies of objections and hearing requests must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of

encryption. Copies of objections and hearing requests will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file

format. All copies of objections and hearing requests in electronic

form must be identified by the docket control number [OPP-300463]. No

Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-

mail. Electronic copies of objections and hearing requests on this rule

may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional

information on electronic submissions can be found in Unit VIII. of

this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Mike Mendelsohn,

Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail

address: 5th Floor CS, 2800 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-

308-8715); email<EMAIL_ADDRESS> SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of January 24, 1996

(62 FR 3682)(FRL-5380-2), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section

408(d) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d) announcing the filing of a pesticide

petition for an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance by

Dekalb Genetics Corporation (Dekalb), 3100 Sycamore Road, Dekalb, IL

60115. The notice contained a summary of the petition prepared by the

petitioner and this summary contained conclusions and arguments to

support its conclusion that the petition complied with the FQPA (Pub.

L. 104-170). The petition requested that an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance be established for the plant-pesticides PAT

and the genetic material necessary for its production in plants in or

on all raw agricultural commodities (RACS). There were no comments or

requests for referral to an advisory committee received in response to

the notice of filing. The data submitted in the petition and other

relevant material have been evaluated. The toxicology and other data

listed below were considered in support of this exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance.

I. Toxicological Profile

    The data submitted regarding potential health effects of PAT

include information on the characterization of the expressed protein in

corn, the acute oral toxicity of PAT, and in vitro digestibility

studies of the protein. The results of these studies were determined

applicable to evaluate human risk and the validity, completeness, and

reliability of the available data from the studies were considered.

    The acute oral toxicity test of bacterially-derived PAT protein

showed no test substance related deaths at a dose of 2,500 milligrams

per kilogram (mg/kg). Residue chemistry data were not required for a

human health effects assessment of the subject plant-pesticide inert

ingredients because of the lack of mammalian toxicity. Both (1)

available information concerning the dietary

consumption patterns of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of

consumers including infants and children) and (2) safety factors which,

in the opinion of experts qualified by scientific training and

experience to evaluate the safety of food additives, are generally

recognized as appropriate for the use of animal experimentation data

were not evaluated because the lack of mammalian toxicity at high

levels of exposure demonstrate the safety of the product at levels

above possible maximum exposure levels. This is similar to the Agency

position regarding toxicity and the requirement of residue data for the

microbial Bacillus thuringiensis. [See 40 CFR 158.740(b).] For

microbial products, further toxicity testing to verify the observed

effects and clarify the source of the effects (Tiers II and III) and

residue data are triggered by significant acute effects in studies such

as the mouse oral toxicity study.

    The acute oral toxicity data submitted support the prediction that

the PAT protein would be non-toxic to humans. When proteins are toxic,

they are known to act via acute mechanisms and at very low dose levels

[Sjoblad, Roy D., et al. ``Toxicological Considerations for Protein

Components of Biological Pesticide Products,'' Regulatory Toxicology

and Pharmacology 15, 3-9 (1992)]. Therefore, since no effects were

shown to be caused by the plant-pesticides, even at relatively high

dose levels, the PAT delta-endotoxin protein is not considered toxic.

    Adequate information was submitted to show that the PAT test

material derived from microbial cultures was biochemically and,

functionally similar to the proteins produced by the plant-pesticide

inert ingredient in corn. Production of microbially produced protein

was chosen in order to obtain sufficient material for testing. In

addition, the in vitro digestibility studies indicate the proteins

would be rapidly degraded following ingestion.

    The genetic material necessary for the production of the plant-

pesticides active and inert ingredients are the nucleic acids (DNA)

which comprise (1) genetic material encoding these proteins and (2)

their regulatory regions. ``Regulatory regions'' are the genetic

material that control the expression of the genetic material encoding

the proteins, such as promoters, terminators, and enhancers. DNA is

common to all forms of plant and animal life and the Agency knows of no

instance where these nucleic acids have been associated with toxic

effects related to their consumption as a component of food. These

ubiquitous nucleic acids as they appear in the subject plant-pesticide

inert ingredient has been adequately characterized by the applicant.

Therefore, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary exposure

to the genetic material necessary for the production of the subject

active and inert plant pesticidal ingredients.

II. Sensitivity of Subgroups

    The Agency has considered available information on the variability

of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers

including infants and children and the physiological differences

between infants and children and adults and effects of in utero

exposure to the plant-pesticides. Since PAT is a protein, allergenic

sensitivities were considered. Current scientific knowledge suggests

that common food allergens tend to be resistant to degradation by heat,

acid, and proteases, are glycosylated and are present at high

concentrations in the food. Data has been submitted which demonstrate

that the PAT protein is rapidly degraded by gastric fluid in vitro and

is non-glycosylated. Thus, the potential for the PAT protein to be a

food allergen is minimal.

III. Cumulative Effects

    The Agency has considered available information on the cumulative

effects of such residues and other substances that have a common mode

of toxicity. These considerations included the cumulative effects on

infants and children of such residues and other substances with a

common mechanism of toxicity. Because there is no indication of

mammalian toxicity to these plant-pesticides, there are no cumulative

effects.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    The Agency has considered available information on the aggregate

exposure levels of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of

consumers) to the pesticide chemical residue and to other related

substances. These considerations include dietary exposure under the

tolerance exemption and all other tolerances or exemptions in effect

for the plant-pesticides chemical residue, and exposure from non-

occupational sources. Exposure via the skin or inhalation is not likely

since the plant-pesticides are contained within plant cells which

essentially eliminates these exposure routes or reduces these exposure

routes to negligible. Oral exposure, at very low levels, may occur from

ingestion of processed corn products and drinking water. However a lack

of mammalian toxicity and the digestibility of the plant-pesticides has

been demonstrated. At present, the use sites for PAT are all

agricultural. Therefore, exposure via residential or lawn use to

infants and children is not expected. Even if negligible exposure

should occur, the Agency concludes that such exposure would present no

risk due to the lack of toxicity.

    FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional

tenfold margin of exposure (safety) for infants and children in the

case of threshold effects to account for pre- and post-natal toxicity

and the completeness of the database unless EPA determines that a

different margin of exposure (safety) will be safe for infants and

children. In this instance EPA believes there is reliable data to

support the conclusion that the plant-pesticides are not toxic to

mammals, including infants and children, and thus there are no

threshold effects of concern. As a result, the provision requiring an

additional margin of exposure does not apply.

V. Endocrine Effects

    EPA does not have any information regarding endocrine effects for

these kinds of pesticides at this time. The Agency is not requiring

information on the endocrine effects of these plant-pesticides at this

time; and Congress allowed 3 years after August 3, 1996, for the Agency

to implement a screening and testing program with respect to endocrine

effects.

VI. Conclusion

    There is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from

aggregate exposure to the U. S. population, including infants and

children, to the PAT protein and the genetic material necessary for its

production. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all

other exposures for which there is reliable information. The Agency has

arrived at this conclusion because, as discussed above, no toxicity to

mammals has been observed for the plant-pesticides. As a result, EPA

establishes an exemption from tolerance requirements pursuant to FFDCA

section 408(j)(3) for PAT and the genetic material necessary for its

production in all plants.

    Phosphinothiricin Acetyltransferase (PAT) and the genetic material

necessary for its production in all plants are exempt from the

requirement of a tolerance when used as plant-pesticide inert

ingredients in all plant raw agricultural commodities. ``Genetic

material necessary for its production'' means the genetic material

which comprise (1) genetic material encoding the PAT protein and (2)

its regulatory regions. ``Regulatory regions'' are the genetic material

that control the

expression of the genetic material encoding the PAT protein, such as

promoters, terminators, and enhancers.

VII. Objections and Hearing Requests

    The new FFDCA section 408(g) provides essentially the same process

for persons to ``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) as

was provided in the old section 408 and in section 409. However, the

period for filing objections is 60 days, rather than 30 days. EPA

currently has procedural regulations which governs the submission of

objections and hearing requests. These regulations will require some

modification to reflect the new law. However, until those modifications

can be made, EPA will continue to use those procedural regulations with

appropriate adjustments to reflect the new law. 0

    Any person may, by June 10, 1997, file written objections to any

aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those

objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with the

Hearing Clerk, at the address given under the ``ADDRESSES'' section (40

CFR 178.20). A copy of the objections and/or hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be submitted to the OPP docket for this

rulemaking. The objections submitted must specify the provisions of the

regulation deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40

CFR 178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed

by 40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must

include a statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is

requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of

any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for

a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and

substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that

available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established,

resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking

into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and

resolution of the factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR

178.32). Information submitted in connection with an objection or

hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all

of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed

except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy

of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may

be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

VIII. Public Docket

    A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket

control number [OPP-300463]. A public version of this record, which

does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for

inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public

Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The

official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public version, as

described above, is kept in paper form. Accordingly, in the event there

are objections and hearing requests, EPA will transfer any copies of

objections and hearing requests received electronically into printed,

paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the

official rulemaking record. The official rulemaking record is the paper

record maintained at the Virginia address in ADDRESSES at the beginning

of this document.

IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this

action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and since this action

does not impose any information collection requirements subject to

approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., it

is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. In

addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain

any ``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior

consultation as specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093,

October 28, l993), or special considerations as required by Executive

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, l994).

    Because exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance established

on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA do not require

issuance of a proposed rule, the regulatory flexibility analysis

requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 604(a),

do not apply. Prior to the recent amendment of the FFDCA, EPA had

treated such rulemakings as subject to the RFA; however, the amendments

to the FFDCA clarify that no proposal is required for such rulemakings

and hence that the RFA is inapplicable. Nonetheless, the Agency has

previously assessed whether establishing tolerances or exemptions from

tolerance, raising tolerance levels, or expanding exemptions adversely

impact small entities and concluded as a generic matter, that there is

no adverse impact (46 FR 24950)(May 4, 1981).

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), EPA submitted a report

containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the

General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's

Federal Register. This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 25, 1997.

Daniel M. Barolo,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

    2. Section 180.1151 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 180.1151  Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase (PAT) and the genetic

material necessary for its production all plants; exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance.

    Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase (PAT) and the genetic material

necessary for its production in all plants are exempt from the

requirement of a tolerance when used as plant-pesticide inert

ingredients in all plant raw agricultural commodities. ``Genetic

material necessary for its production'' means the genetic material

which comprise genetic material encoding the PAT protein and its

regulatory regions. ``Regulatory regions'' are the genetic material

that control the expression of the genetic material encoding the PAT

protein, such as promoters, terminators, and enhancers.

Sec. 180.1175 [Removed]

    3. Section 180.1175 is removed.

[FR Doc. 97-9373 Filed 4-10-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11803-11807]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05329]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82854; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Establish Fees for Options That Overlie the S&P Select Sector Index
Options

March 12, 2018.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 1, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish fees for options that overlie
the S&P Select Sector Index options (``Sector Index options''). The
text of the

proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On October 4, 2017, the Exchange submitted a proposed rule change
to amend certain rules in connection with listing S&P Select Sector
Index \3\ options under generic narrow-based listing standards, which
became effective on November 3, 2017.\4\ The Exchange rules currently
permit the Exchange to list and trade options overlying each S&P Select
Sector Index (``Sector Index options''). The Exchange proposes to
establish fees for Sector Index options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ There are ten S&P Select Sector Indexes: S&P Financial
Select Sector Index (IXM), S&P Energy Select Sector Index (IXE), S&P
Technology Select Sector Index (IXT), S&P Health Care Select Sector
Index (IXV), S&P Utilities Select Sector Index (IXU), S&P Consumer
Staples Select Sector Index (IXR), S&P Industrials Select Sector
Index (IXI), S&P Consumer Discretionary Select Sector Index (IXY),
S&P Materials Select Sector Index (IXB), and S&P Real Estate Select
Sector Index (IXRE). The options listing symbols for options
overlying these indexes will be: SIXM, SIXE, SIXT, SIXV, SIXU, SIXR,
SIXI, SIXY, SIXB, and SIXRE, respectively.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81879 (October 16,
2017), 82 FR 48858 (October 20, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-065).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, a specific set of proprietary products are
commonly included or excluded from a variety of programs, qualification
calculations and transaction fees. In lieu of listing out these
products in various sections of the Fees Schedule, the Exchange uses
the term ``Underlying Symbol List A'' to represent these products.\5\
The Exchange notes the reason the products in Underlying Symbol List A
are often collectively included or excluded from certain programs,
qualification calculations and transactions fees is because the
Exchange has expended considerable resources developing and maintaining
its proprietary, exclusively listed products. Similar to the products
currently represented by ``Underlying Symbol List A,'' Sector Index
options are not listed on any other exchange. As such, the Exchange
proposes to establish fees for Sector Index options similar to those
applicable to options overlying the indexes in Underlying Symbol List
A, as well as similarly exclude those options from several programs
from products [sic] in Underlying Symbol List A are excluded. The
Exchange does not propose to add Sector Index options to Underlying
Symbol List A. In lieu of listing out these products in various
sections of the Fees Schedule, the Exchange proposes to refer to Sector
Indexes in the Fees Schedule (which is defined in proposed footnote
47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Currently, Underlying Symbol List A is defined in Footnote
34 and represents the following proprietary products: OEX, XEO, RUT,
RLG, RLV, RUI, AWDE, FTEM, FXTM, UKXM, SPX (including SPXW), VIX,
VOLATILITY INDEXES and binary options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, like products in Underlying Symbol List A, the
Exchange proposes to except Sector Index options from the Volume
Incentive Program (``VIP''),\6\ the Marketing Fee,\7\ the Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap (``Fee Cap''),\8\ exemption from fees for
facilitation orders,\9\ the AIM Contra Execution Fee,\10\ the CFLEX AIM
Response Fee,\11\ the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary and/or
their Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliates transaction fee cap for all
non-facilitation business executed in AIM or open outcry, or as a QCC
or FLEX transaction,\12\ the Order Router Subsidy (``ORS'') and Complex
Order Router Subsidy (``CORS'') Programs,\13\ the per contract per side
surcharge for noncustomer complex order executions that remove
liquidity from the COB and auction response in the complex order
auction and AIM,\14\ and the calculation of qualifying volume for
rebates for Floor Broker Trading Permit Holder Trading Permit Fees.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Volume Incentive Program
(VIP) table and Footnote 36.
    \7\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 6.
    \8\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 11.
    \9\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnotes 11 and 12.
    \10\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 18.
    \11\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 20.
    \12\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 22.
    \13\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Order Router Subsidy
Program and Complex Order Router Subsidy Program table and Footnotes
29 and 30.
    \14\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 35.
    \15\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does intend to apply to Sector Index options the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale.\16\ Although the Exchange proposes
fees for Sector Index options similar to those established for products
in ``Underlying Symbol List A,'' the Exchange proposes to apply to
Sector Index options the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale to encourage
Market-Makers to provide liquidity in these classes and believes that
including them in this sliding scale will provide such incentive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Specified Proprietary Index
Options Rate Table--Underlying Symbol List A and Sector Indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next proposes to establish transaction fees for Sector
Index options. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to assess the same
fees for Sector Index options as apply to OEX Weekly and XEO Weekly
options, except for Market-Maker transaction fees, which will be
subject to the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale as described above, and
except for Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary transactions,
which will be $0.25 rather than subject to the Proprietary Products
Sliding Scale for Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Orders.
Transaction fees for Sector Index options will be as follows (all
listed rates are per contract): \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer (origin code C).....  $0.30.
Clearing Trading Permit        $0.25.\18\
 Holder Proprietary (origin
 codes F and L).
Market-Maker (origin code M).  Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale.
Joint Back-Office, Broker-     $0.40.
 Dealer, Non-Trading Permit
 Holder Market-Maker,
 Professional/Voluntary
 Professional (origin codes
 BNWJ).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to apply to Sector Index options the
CFLEX Surcharge Fee of $0.10 per contract for all Sector Index option
orders executed electronically on CFLEX, capped at $250 per trade
(i.e., first 2,500 contracts per trade).\19\ The CFLEX Surcharge Fee
assists the Exchange in recouping the cost of developing and
maintaining the CFLEX system. The Exchange notes that the CFLEX
Surcharge Fee (and $250 cap) also applies to other proprietary index
options, including products in Underlying Symbol List A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Currently, there is one line in the Specified Proprietary
Index Options Rate Table for Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary, pursuant to which all products subject to that table
(Underlying Symbol List A) were [sic] subject to the Proprietary
Products Sliding Scale for Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary Orders. The proposed rule change divides Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary line in the transaction rate table
into two, indicating that Underlying Symbol List A will continue to
be subject to the sliding scale, and Sector Indexes will be $0.25.
    \19\ See id. [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently assesses an Index License Surcharge of $0.10
per contract for all non-customer orders for products in Underlying
Symbol A except RUT and SPX. The Exchange proposes to assess a
Surcharge of $0.10 per contract in order to recoup the costs associated
with the Sector Index license. In order to promote and encourage
trading of Sector Index options, the Exchange proposes to waive the
Index License Surcharge for Sector Index option transactions through
June 30, 2018.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id. [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\21\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \22\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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 regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, 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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \23\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\24\ which
requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit
Holders and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particularly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge
different fee amounts to different user types in the manner proposed
because the proposed fees are consistent with the price differentiation
that exists today for other index products, including those in
Underlying Symbol A. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee
amounts for Sector Index option orders are reasonable because the
proposed fee amounts are the same already assessed for other
proprietary products (i.e. OEX Weeklys and XEO Weeklys), as well as are
within the range of amounts assessed for the Exchange's other
proprietary products.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Specified Proprietary Index
Options Rate Table--Underlying Symbol A and Sector Indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees to Customers as compared to certain
other market participants except Market-Makers and Clearing Trading
Permit Holders because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically,
customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. The fees offered to customers are
intended to attract more customer trading volume to the Exchange.
Moreover, the options industry has a long history of providing
preferential pricing to Customers, and the Exchange's current Fees
Schedule currently does so in many places, as do the fees structures of
many other exchanges. Finally, all fee amounts listed as applying to
Customers will be applied equally to all Customers (meaning that all
Customers will be assessed the same amount).
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to, [sic] assess lower fees to Market-Makers pursuant to
the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale as compared to other market
participants because Market-Makers, unlike other market participants,
take on a number of obligations, including quoting obligations, that
other market participants do not have. Further, these lower fees
offered to Market-Makers are intended to incent Market-Makers to quote
and trade more on the Exchange, thereby providing more trading
opportunities for all market participants. Additionally, the proposed
fee for Market-Makers will be applied equally to all Market-Makers
(meaning that all Market-Makers will be subject to the Liquidity
Provider Sliding Scale). This concept also applies to orders from all
other origins. It should also be noted that all fee amounts described
herein are intended to attract greater order flow to the Exchange in
Sector Index options, which should therefore serve to benefit all
Exchange market participants.
    Similarly, it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
assess lower fees to Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary orders
than those of other market participants (except Market-Makers) because
Clearing Trading Permit Holders also have a number of obligations (such
as membership with the Options Clearing Corporation), significant
regulatory burdens, and financial obligations, that other market
participants do not need to take on. The Exchange also notes that the
Sector Index option fee amounts for each separate type of market
participant will be assessed equally to all such market participants
(i.e. all Broker-Dealer orders will be assessed the same amount, all
Joint Back-Office orders will be assessed the same amount, etc.). The
Exchange believes the proposed transaction fee of $0.25 per contract
for Clearing Trading Permit Holders is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory because is comparable to the amount of
transaction fees for Clearing Trading Permit Holders in other
proprietary products.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Cboe Options Fee Schedule, Cboe Options Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Products Sliding Scales Table. The
maximum transaction fee per contract in the Table B (related to the
VIX Sliding Scale) part of that table is $0.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed transaction fees for Brokers
Dealers, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers, Professionals/
Voluntary Professionals, JBOs and Customers are reasonable because they
are the same as those assessed for transactions in certain other
proprietary products.\27\ The

Exchange also notes that the Sector Index option fee amounts for each
separate type of market participant will be assessed equally to all
such market participants (i.e. all Broker-Dealer orders will be
assessed the same amount, all Joint Back-Office orders will be assessed
the same amount, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that assessing an Index License Surcharge Fee
of $0.10 per contract to Sector Index option transactions is reasonable
because the Surcharge helps recoup some of the costs associated with
the license for Sector Index options. Additionally, the Exchange notes
that the Surcharge amount is the same as, and in some cases lower than,
the amount assessed as an Index License Surcharge to other index
products. The proposed Surcharge is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the amount will be assessed to all market
participants to whom the Surcharge applies. Not applying the Sector
Index License Surcharge Fee to Customer orders is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because this is designed to attract Customer
Sector Index option orders, which increases liquidity and provides
greater trading opportunities to all market participants. The Exchange
believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
waive the Index License Surcharge because it promotes and encourages
trading of these new products and applies to all Trading Permit
Holders.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes assessing a CFLEX Surcharge Fee of
$0.10 per contract for all Sector Index option orders executed
electronically on CFLEX and capping it at $250 (i.e., first 2,500
contracts per trade) is reasonable because it is the same amount
currently charged to other proprietary index products for the same
transactions.\28\ The proposed Surcharge is also equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the amount will be assessed to all
market participants to whom the CFLEX Surcharge applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Index Options Rate Table--
All Index Products Excluding Underlying Symbol List A and Sector
Indexes, CFLEX Surcharge Fee and Specified Proprietary Index Options
Rate Table--Underlying Symbol List A and Sector Indexes, CFLEX
Surcharge Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excepting VIP, the Marketing Fee, the Fee Cap, exemption from fees
for facilitation orders, the AIM Contra Execution Fee, the CFLEX AIM
Response Fee, the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary and/or
their Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliates transaction fee cap for all
non-facilitation business executed in AIM or open outcry, or as a QCC
or FLEX transaction, the ORS and CORS Programs,\29\ the per contract
per side surcharge for noncustomer complex order executions that remove
liquidity from the COB and auction response in the complex order
auction and AIM,\30\ and the calculation of qualifying volume for
rebates for Floor Broker Trading Permit Holder Trading Permit Fees is
reasonable because other proprietary products are excepted from those
same items. This is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the
same reason; it seems equitable to except Sector Index options from
items on the Fees Schedule from which other proprietary products are
also excepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Order Router Subsidy
Program and Complex Order Router Subsidy Program table and Footnotes
29 and 30.
    \30\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different fees
are assessed to different market participants in some circumstances,
these different market participants have different obligations and
different circumstances as discussed above. For example, Market-Makers
have quoting obligations that other market participants do not have.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change to waive the
Index License Surcharge through June 30, 2018 will impose any burden on
intramarket competition because it applies to all Trading Permit
Holders and encourages trading in these new products.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because Sector
Index options will be exclusively listed on Cboe Options. To the extent
that the proposed changes make Cboe Options a more attractive
marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market
participants are welcome to become Cboe Options market participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \31\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \32\
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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(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-CBOE-2018-012 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-012. 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-
CBOE-2018-012, and should be submitted on or beforeApril 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05329 Filed 3-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41014]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18238]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EF17-2-000; EF17-3-000; EF17-4-000]

Bonneville Power Administration: Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on August 7, 2017, Bonneville Power Administration
submitted an errata to its July 31, 2017 tariff filing per: BP-18 Power
and Transmission Rates.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 30, 2017.

    Dated: August 23, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18238 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4175-4177]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0154; FMCSA-2014-0106; FMCSA-2014-0384; FMCSA-
2015-0328; FMCSA-2017-0057; FMCSA-2018-0136]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for nine
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided
below. Comments must be received on or before February 16, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0154, Docket No. FMCSA-
2014-0106, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0384, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0328,
Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0057, or Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0136 using any of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; 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.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, 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.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0154, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0106, Docket
No. FMCSA-2014-0384, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0328, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-
0057, or Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0136) indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. 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,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2012-0154, FMCSA-2014-0106, FMCSA-2014-
0384, FMCSA-2015-0328, FMCSA-2017-0057, or FMCSA-2018-0136, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click
on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box
on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment
as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
    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.

    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2012-0154, FMCSA-2014-0106, FMCSA-2014-
0384, FMCSA-2015-0328, FMCSA-2017-0057, or FMCSA-2018-0136, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-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 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
    The nine individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal
of their exemptions from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11),
in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.

III. Request for Comments

    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(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the
nine applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the hearing requirement. The nine drivers in this notice
remain in good standing with the Agency. In addition, for Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License
Information System and the Motor Carrier Management Information System
are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the
Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing
Agency. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate
commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for
each of these drivers for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of January
and are discussed below.
    As of January 15, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following eight individuals have satisfied the
renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing
requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Stephen Goen (GA)
Jerry Jones (TX)
James Laughrey (KS)
Christopher McKenzie (TX)
Kathy Miller (IA)
Lesley O'Rorke (IL)
Gerson Ramirez (MT)
Michael Wilkes (MA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0154, FMCSA-
2014-0106, FMCSA-2014-0384, FMCSA-2017-0057, or FMCSA-2018-0136. Their
exemptions are applicable as of January 15, 2021, and will expire on
January 15, 2023.
    As of January 22, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), Jaymes Haar (IA) has satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for
interstate CMV drivers.
    This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0328. The
exemption is applicable as of January 22, 2021, and will expire on
January 22, 2023.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in
Sec.  390.5; (2) report all citations and convictions for disqualifying
offenses under 49 CFR 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and (3) each driver
is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in
interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption
when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or
local enforcement official. In addition, the exemption does not exempt
the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements.
Each exemption will be valid for 2 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(b).

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the nine exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the hearing
requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for two years
unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00798 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P