19991 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 2003 / Notices C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? To submit comments, or access the official public docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. C. of the Federal Register of the January 29, 2003 document. If you have questions, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What Action is EPA Taking? This document reopens the public comment period established in the Federal Register of January 29, 2003. In that document, EPA announced the availability of the preliminary comparative ecological assessment for nine rodenticides and invited comment on issues directly associated with the nine rodenticides that were included in the assessment. Due to the many requests received for additional time to comment, EPA is hereby reopening the comment period, which was set to end on March 31, 2003, to May 30, 2003.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: April 8, 2003. Lois A. Rossi, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 03   10070 Filed 4   22   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0129; FRL   7303   1]

Fluoxastrobin; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0129, must be received on or before May 23, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McNeilly, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   6742; e mail address: mcneilly. dennis@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0129. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 22, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23APN1. SGM 23APN1 19992 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 2003 / Notices docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0129. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0129. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0129. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0129. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/ or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408( d)( 2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 22, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23APN1. SGM 23APN1 19993 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 2003 / Notices Dated: April 15, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petition The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

Bayer CropScience PP 3F6556 EPA has received a pesticide petition ( 3F6556) from Bayer CropScience, 2 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of fluoxastrobin; 2[[ 6( 2 chlorophenoxy) 5 fluoro 4 pyrimidinyl] oxy] phenyl ( 5,6 dihydro 1,4,2 dioxazin 3 yl) methanone Omethyloxime in or on the raw agricultural commodities ( RACs) alfalfa, forage at 0.05 parts per million ( ppm), alfalfa, hay at 1.0 ppm, cotton, gin byproducts at 0.02 ppm, grain, cereal, forage at 0.10 ppm, grain, cereal, hay at 0.10 ppm, grain, cereal, straw at 0.10 ppm, grain, cereal, stover at 0.10 ppm, grass, forage at 0.10 ppm, grass, hay at 0.50 ppm, legume, seed at 0.01 ppm, legume, forage at 0.05 ppm, legume, hay at 0.05 ppm, peanut at 0.01 ppm, peanut, hay at 20 ppm, peanut, refined oil at 0.10 ppm, tomato, paste at 2.0 ppm, vegetable, fruiting, group at 1.0 ppm, vegetable, leafy, petioles, except brassica, subgroup at 5.0 ppm, and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup at 0.01 ppm. Fluoxastrobin; 2[[ 6( 2 chlorophenoxy) 5 fluoro 4 pyrimidinyl] oxy] phenyl ( 5,6 dihydro 1,4,2 dioxazin 3 yl) methanone Omethyloxime and its phenoxyhydroxypyrimidine metabolite; 6( 2 chlorophenoxy) 5 fluoro 4 pyrimidinol in or on the RACs cattle, fat at 0.10 ppm, cattle, meat at 0.05 ppm, cattle, meat byproducts at 0.20 ppm, milk at 0.01 ppm, and milk, fat at 0.10 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of fluoxastrobin in plants is adequately understood. Studies have been conducted to delineate the metabolism of radiolabeled fluoxastrobin in peanut, tomato, spring wheat, and various representative rotational crops, all showing similar results. The residue of concern is parent fluoxastrobin ( sum of E and Z isomers). 2. Analytical method. Adequate analytical methodology using liquid chromatography/ mass spectrometer/ mass spectromer ( LC/ MS/ MS) detection is available for enforcement purposes. 3. Magnitude of residues. Complete residue data exists for fluoxastrobin on these crops and crop groupings. Magnitude of residue trials were conducted on peanut, potato, celery, tomato, pepper, and the rotational crops of alfalfa, cotton, cereal grains ( corn, rice, sorghum and wheat), soybeans, other legume vegetables, and grasses. A cattle feeding study was performed in order to determine residues in meat and milk commodities. The data support the proposed tolerances.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. Oral and dermal lethal dose ( LD) 50 values were > 2,000 milligrams/ kilogram bodyweight ( mg/ kg) ( bwt). Inhalation lethal concentrations ( LC) 50 values were > 4,998 milligrams/ meters ( mg/ m3) air. Fluoxastrobin technical was not irritating to rabbit skin, was moderately irritating to eyes in rabbits, and was non sensitizing dermally in the Magnusson/ Kligman maximization test in guinea pigs. Acute toxicity studies for fluoxastrobin support an overall Toxicity Category III. 2. Genotoxicity. Several genotoxicity tests were conducted to test for pointmutagenic activity, chromosome aberration in vitro and in vivo, and for DNA repair. All tests conducted were negative, indicating no evidence of mutagenic or genotoxic potential. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. An oral developmental toxicity study in rat did not reveal any evidence of teratogenic potential. The maternal no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) was 300 mg/ kg and the developmental NOAEL was 1,000 mg/ kg bwt/ day. An oral developmental toxicity study in rabbits demonstrated a maternal NOAEL of 25 mg/ kg bwt/ day, a developmental NOAEL of 100 mg/ kg bwt/ day and did not reveal any teratogenic potential. A 2 generation study in rats, with a parental toxicity NOAEL of 73.7 mg/ kg bwt/ day for males and 86.7 mg/ kg bwt/ day for females, did not reveal evidence of a primary reproductive toxicity potential. The reproductive NOAEL was 763.6 mg/ kg bwt/ day for males and 806.5 mg/ kg bwt/ day in females. 4. Subchronic toxicity. A subchronic toxicity feeding study with rats over 90 days demonstrated a NOAEL of 7.3 and 18.3 mg/ kg bwt/ day for males and females, respectively, based on reduced body weights and alterations in several urinary tract related clinical chemistry parameters, at the higher dose levels. In a subchronic feeding study in mice over 14 weeks, a NOAEL was not established based on decreased alanine aminotransferase ( ALAT) and increased absolute and relative liver weights at the low dose level ( 21.7 and 35.3 mg/ kg bwt/ day for males and females respectively). A 14 week feeding study in dogs demonstrated a NOAEL of 3.0 mg/ kg bwt/ day based on decreased body weights and food consumption, and liver effects ( enzyme induction, increased liver weights, cytoplasmic change), and thyroid effects ( decreased T3) 5. Chronic toxicity. A 24 month chronic/ oncogenicity feeding study in rats demonstrated a NOAEL of 53.0 and 35.2 mg/ kg bwt/ day for males and females, respectively. An oncogenicity study in the mouse revealed a NOAEL of 18.5 and 29.5 mg/ kg bwt/ day for males and females, respectively based on liver effects. There was no indication in the rat or mouse for an oncogenic effect of fluoxastrobin. A 1 year feeding study with dogs demonstrated a NOAEL of 1.7 and 1.5 mg/ kg bwt/ day for males and females, respectively based on decreased body weights and slight liver effects ( increased alkaline phosphatase ( Aph) and liver weights). 6. Animal metabolism. Metabolism and pharmacokinetic studies in the rats, lactating goats, and laying hens demonstrate that fluoxastrobin residues are rapidly absorbed, metabolized, and eliminated. There was no evidence of accumulation of residues in any tissues or organs. The metabolic pattern was always complex and numerous metabolites were identified. The main metabolic reactions, however, are very comparable for all tested animal species and most metabolites were present at low levels. Based on the available metabolism data, fluoxastrobin and phenoxy hydroxypyrimidine are the proposed residues of concern in animals. 7. Metabolite toxicology. The residues of concern are fluoxastrobin its VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 22, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23APN1. SGM 23APN1 19994 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 2003 / Notices phenoxy hydroxypyrimidine metabolite. This metabolite was investigated for acute oral toxicity and point mutagenic activity in a bacterial reverse mutation assay. The phenoxyhydroxypyrimidine metabolite did not show mutagenic activity in the reverse mutation assay and the oral LD50 was > 300 < 500 mg/ kg body weight. 8. Endocrine disruption. There is no evidence to suggest that fluoxastrobin has any primary endocrine disruptive potential. Reproductive and developmental findings provided no evidence of an enhanced sensitivity of the young.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure   i. Food. Acute and chronic dietary analyses were conducted to estimate exposure to potential fluoxastrobin residues in/ on the following crops and crop groups: celery, fruiting vegetables, peanuts, and potatoes. Rotational crops included in the analysis are alfalfa, grasses, legume vegetables, foliage of legume vegetables, cereal grains, and cotton. Tier I analysis were conducted for both the acute and chronic scenarios using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEM) ( Exponent, Inc.) software. The acute dietary exposure estimates at the 95th percentile of exposure for the U. S. population was 1.4% of the acute reference dose ( RfD). The population subgroup with the highest exposure was children 1 to 6 at 2.7% of the acute RfD. Chronic dietary exposure estimates from potential residues of fluoxastrobin for the U. S. population was 6.5% of the chronic RfD. The subpopulation with the highest exposure was children 1 to 6 with 12.7% of the chronic RfD used. Tier I assessments use tolerance residue values and 100% crop treated. These can be considered very conservative values. ii. Drinking water. EPA's Standard Operating Procedure ( SOP) for Drinking Water Exposure and Risk Assessments was used to perform the drinking water analysis for fluoxastrobin. This SOP utilizes a variety of tools to conduct drinking water assessment. These tools include water models such as Screening Concentration in Groundwater ( SCIGROW Generic Estimate Exposure Concentration ( GENEEC), Pesticide Root Zone Model Exposure Analysis Modeling Systems ( PRZM/ EXAMS), and monitoring data. If monitoring data are not available then the models are used to predict potential residues in surface water and ground water. In the case of fluoxastrobin, monitoring data do not exist, therefore, PRZMS/ EXAMS and SCI GROW models were used to estimate a drinking water residue. The calculated drinking water levels of comparison ( DWLOC) for acute and chronic exposures for all adults and children exceed the modeled fluoxastrobin drinking water estimated concentrations ( DWECs). The acute DWLOC values are 8,624 parts per billion ( ppb) for adults and 2,433 ppb for children. The worst case DWEC for acute scenarios is calculated to be 58 ppb using the PRZMS/ EXAMS surface water model. The chronic DWLOC values are 491 ppb for adults and 131 ppb for children. The DWEC for the worst case chronic scenario is 28 ppb PRZM/ EXAMS. 2. Non dietary exposure. Residential ( non dietary) exposure is limited to post application exposure of fluoxastrobin from professional applications to residential turf and golf courses. Using the very conservative EPA SOPs for residential exposure a margin of exposure ( MOE) of 7,143 was calculated for the youth golfer scenario. Adult and toddler reentry to treated turf MOEs were 784 and 468 respectively. Aggregate exposure considers all exposures from food, drinking water, and residential uses together. Probabilistic models and methods as well as refined data for these scenarios are under development. In the interim, as a screening level analysis a worstcase deterministic calculation can be considered. For fluoxastrobin this would consist of a child ( 1 to 6) who has a chronic dietary exposure to potential residues in food and also plays on a maximally treated lawn ( after 4 applications) on a particular day. The childs lawn exposure includes estimates of dermal exposure and oral exposure from hand to mouth, object to mouth and soil ingestion SOP scenarios. The childs estimated dose from the lawn exposure is 0.0194 mg/ kg bwt/ day. The child 1 to 6 chronic dietary exposure estimate is 0.001907 mg/ kg bwt/ day. The total dose for a child 1 to 6 with this worst case exposure is 0.0213 mg/ kg bwt/ day or 8.5% of the acute RfD. The resulting aggregate acute DWLOC is 2,287 ppb still well above the acute DWEC of 58 ppb. Total adult exposure ( average dietary and dermal lawn) is 0.004804 mg/ kg bwt/ day or 1.9% of the acute RfD. The resulting aggregate acute DWLOC for adults is 17,164 ppb.

D. Cumulative Effects Fluoxastrobin is a novel strobilurin analog. Bayer will submit information, if necessary, for EPA to consider concerning potential cumulative effects of fluoxastrobin consistent with the schedule established by EPA in the Federal Register of August 4, 1997 ( 62 FR 42020) ( FRL   5734   6), and other EPA publications pursuant to the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA).

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Using the conservative assumptions described above, based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data it is concluded that aggregate exposure to the proposed uses of fluoxastrobin will utilize at most 1.9% of the RfD for the U. S. population, and is likely to be much less as more realistic data and models are developed. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. DWLOC based on this exposure are much greater than conservative estimated concentrations, and would be expected to be well below the 100% level, if they occur at all. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to the U. S. population from aggregate exposure to fluoxastrobin.

2. Infants and children. Consideration of the toxicology data base as described above leads to no additional concerns for infants and children. Therefore the FQPA safety factor can be established at 1X. Using the conservative exposure assumptions described in the exposure section above, the percent of the RfD that will be used for short term aggregate exposure to residues of fluoxastrobin will be 8.5% for children 1 to 6 ( the most highly exposed subgroup This value is based on a worstcase aggregate exposure calculation of a child 1 to 6 who has a background dietary exposure to potential residues and plays on a maximally treated lawn. As in the adult situation, DWLOC are much higher than the worst case DWECs and would be expected to use well below 100% of the RfD, if they occur at all. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of fluoxastrobin.

F. International Tolerances Codex maximum residue levels are not yet established for fluoxastrobin. [ FR Doc. 03   9746 Filed 4   22   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 22, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23APN1. SGM 23APN1


[Federal Register: March 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 12748-12749]
[DOCID:fr10mr08-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0077]

Recreational Boating Safety Projects, Programs and Activities
Funded Under Provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century; Accounting of

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: For eight fiscal years starting in 1999, the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century has made $5 million available to the
Secretary of Transportation or the Secretary of Homeland Security for
payment of Coast Guard expenses for personnel and activities directly
related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational
boating safety program. In 2005, the law was amended and the amount was
increased to $5.5 million. This notice satisfies a requirement of the
Act that a detailed accounting of the projects, programs, and
activities funded under the national recreational boating safety
program provision of the Act be published annually in the Federal
Register. In this notice we have specified the amount of monies the
Coast Guard has committed, obligated or expended during fiscal year
2007, as of September 30, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Ludwig, Regulations Development
Manager, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Background and Purpose: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century became law on June 9, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-178; 112 Stat. 107).
The Act required that of the $5 million made available to carry out the
national recreational boating safety program each year, $2 million
shall be available only to ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of Title
46, U.S. Code--Recreational Vessels. On September 29, 2005, the
Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety Amendments Act of 2005 was
enacted (Pub. L. 109-74; 119 Stat. 2031). This Act increased the funds
available to the national recreational boating safety program from $5
million to $5.5 million annually, and stated that ``not less than'' $2
million shall be available only to ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of
Title 46, U.S. Code--Recreational Vessels.
    The responsibility to administer these funds was delegated to the
Commandant of the United States Coast Guard. Subsection (c) of section
7405 of the Act directs that no funds available to the Secretary under
this subsection may be used to replace funding traditionally provided
through general appropriations, nor for any purposes except those
purposes authorized; namely, for personnel and activities directly
related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational
boating safety program. Amounts made available each fiscal year from
1999 through 2007 shall remain available until expended.
    Use of these funds requires compliance with standard Federal
contracting rules with associated lead and processing times resulting
in a lag time between available funds and spending. The total amount of
funding transferred to the Coast Guard from the Sport Fish Restoration
and Boating Trust Fund and committed, obligated, and/or expended during
fiscal year 2007 for each activity is shown below.
    Factory Visit Program: Funding was provided to continue the
national recreational boat factory visit program, initiated in January
2001. The factory visit program currently allows contractor personnel,
acting on behalf of the Coast Guard, to visit 2,000 recreational boat
manufacturers each year to inspect for compliance with federal
regulations, communicate with the manufacturers as to why they need to
comply with federal regulations, and educate them, as necessary, on how
to comply with federal regulations. ($2,156,810)
    Boat Compliance Testing: Funding was provided to continue expanded
Boat Testing program which includes inboard/sterndrive boats and used
boats. ($100,000)
    Associated Equipment Compliance Testing: Funding was provided to

continue to buy recreational boat ``associated equipment'' (e.g.,
starters, alternators, fuel pumps, and bilge pumps) and test this
equipment for compliance with federal safety regulations. This new
initiative complements the boat compliance testing program. ($150,000)
    New Recreational Boating Safety Associated Travel: Travel by
employees of the Office of Boating Safety was performed to carry out
additional recreational boating safety actions and to gather background
and planning information for new recreational boating safety
initiatives. ($13,489)
    Boating Accident News Clipping Service: Funding was provided to
continue to gather daily news stories of recreational boating accidents
nationally for more real time accident information and to identify
accidents that may involve regulatory non-compliances or safety
defects. ($54,900)
    Accident Investigation Tiger Team: Funding was provided to continue
to provide on-call expert accident investigative services for any
boating accident that appeared to involve a regulatory non-compliance
or safety defect. ($59,278)
    Web-based Document Management System: Funding was provided to
continue to provide a web-based document management to better enable
the handling of thousands of recreational boating recall case and
campaign reports. ($49,630)
    Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) Outreach Program: Funding was
provided for this program which provides full marketing, media, public
information, and program strategy support to the nation-wide RBS
effort. The goal is to coordinate the RBS outreach initiatives and
campaigns some of which include: National Boating Under the Influence
Campaign (BUI), ``You're in Command. Boat Responsibly!'', PFD Wear,
Vessel Safety Check Program (VSC), Boating Safety Education Courses,
Propeller Strike Avoidance, Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, and other
recreational boating safety issues on an as needed basis. The USCG
purchased and will distribute 10,000 inflatable lifejackets to
volunteer groups to be worn while conducting vessel safety checks and
during public recreational boating events such as exhibits, boat shows,
public education courses, etc. to promote the ``Wear it'' campaign and
to make boaters aware of the modern advances in lifejackets.
($1,696,725)
    Boating Accident Report Database (BARD) Web System: BARD Web System
funding enables reporting authorities in the 50 States, five U.S.
Territories and the District of Columbia to manage their accident
reports electronically over a secure Internet environment. The system
also enables the user community to generate statistical reports that
show the frequency, nature, and severity of boating accidents. FY 06
funds supported system maintenance, technical (hotline) support and
formal classroom instruction for the entire user community. ($310,608)
    Personnel Support: Funding was provided for personnel to support
the development of new regulations, to support new contracting
activities associated with the additional funding, and to monitor and
manage the contracts awarded. ($854,706)
    National Recreational Boating Survey: A national recreational
boating survey was conducted to obtain up-to-date statistical estimates
on recreational boating. Over 25,000 surveys were completed with
individuals who boated between September 2001 and September 2002.
Survey findings were extrapolated to produce national, regional and
State estimates of boat use as well as the characteristics of boat
operators, passengers, boats, safety equipment, and the boating
environment. ($2,126)
    Risk Management for Recreational Boaters: Funding was provided for
risk-based decision training focusing on three boating groups--
families, friends and solo boaters. The course provides attendees with
an in-depth look at proper risk management and discusses techniques for
better decision-making processes in boating. The end result is to
provide a potential national model to recreational boaters with
decision-making skills that will result in safer boaters. The benefit
will be a better understanding as to how to deal effectively with risk
and lower mishap rates. ($25,000)
    Propeller Guard Test Protocol: Funding was provided to complete the
recreational boat handling/performance phase of a three-phase effort to
develop a protocol for the testing of propeller guards. The test
protocol will be made available to propeller guard manufacturers to
determine the feasibility of their product for use on recreational
boats. ($230,000)
    Recreational Boat Rental Education Package: Funding was provided to
develop a standardized educational package for recreational boat rental
agencies to use to provide the necessary safety information to renters
prior to renting a boat. ($73,783)
    Articulated Mannequins/Computer Simulation Model: Funding was
provided to continue the development of flotation mannequins and a
water forces computer simulation program to promote the rapid,
objective evaluation of different PFD designs on various body types
that are representative of the recreational boating population. The
computer simulation program will be validated through the use of a
family of anthropomorphic, articulated mannequins. The development of
the computer simulation program will facilitate evaluation of the
effectiveness of new and unique PFD designs. ($83,109)
    Of the $5.5 million made available to the Coast Guard in fiscal
year 2007, $3,844,545 has been committed, obligated or expended and an
additional $2,015,619 of prior fiscal year funds have been committed,
obligated or expended, as of September 30, 2007. Approximately $7.8
million has not been committed, obligated or expended from previous
years, and is being reserved for a multi-year national boating survey.

    Dated: December 3, 2007.
James A. Watson,
Rear Admiral (Lower Half), U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention
Policy.

    Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register on March 6, 2008.

 [FR Doc. E8-4755 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 53488-53489]
[DOCID:fr19oc09-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2985-007]

The Mead Corporation, MW Custom Papers, LLC, Onyx Specialty
Papers, Inc.; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and
Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

October 13, 2009.
    On October 9, 2009, The Mead Corporation and MW Custom Papers, LLC
(transferors) and Onyx Specialty Papers, Inc. (transferee), filed an
application for transfers of license of the Willow Mill Project,
located on the Housatonic River in Berkshire County, Massachusetts.
    Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the
Willow Mill Project from the transferors to the transferee.
    Applicant Contact: Transferors: Mr. John Clements, Van Ness
Feldman, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007, Phone
(202) 298-1933. Transferee: Mr. Gary L. Fialty, Bacon Wilson, P.C., 33
State Street, Springfield, MA 01103, Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Henry Woo,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: October 29,
2009. Comments and motions to intervene may be filed electronically via
the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)(2008) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to
be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file,
an original and eight copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. For more information on how to submit these types
of filings please go to the Commission's Web site located at http://
www.ferc.gov/filing-

comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the eLibrary link of the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-2985-
007) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance,
call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25095 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28571-28572]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12915]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0245]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0117

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0117,
Towing Vessels--Title 46 CFR Subchapter M; without change. Our ICR
describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review
and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens
commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before July
19, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2019-0245] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention
Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE, Stop 7710, Washington,
DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777,
Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also
requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information
could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2019-0245], and must be received by July 19,
2019.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0117.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (84 FR 13942, April 8, 2019)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Towing Vessels--Title 46 CFR Subchapter M.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0117.
    Summary: The Coast Guard uses the information to document that
towing vessels meet inspection requirements of 46 CFR Subchapter M. The
information aids in the administration and enforcement of the towing
vessel inspection program.
    Need: Under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306, the Coast Guard
prescribed regulations for the design, construction, alteration, repair
and operation of towing vessels. The Coast Guard uses the information
in this collection to ensure compliance with the requirements.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of towing vessels, and third
party organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from
181,669 hours to 151,219 hours a year, due to a decrease in the
estimated annual number of responses.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: June 13, 2019.
James D. Roppel,
Chief, Office of Information Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2019-12915 Filed 6-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 70 (Friday, April 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20328-20331]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07553]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88569; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule

April 6, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 1, 2020, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'' or ``EDGX
Equities'') is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend its fee schedule. 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://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to add an
additional Retail Volume Tier. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate fee code ``PR'' \3\ from the Standard Rates table as all
other references to fee code PR were removed from the Exchange's fee
schedule on February 3, 2020.\4\ The Exchange proposes to implement the
proposed changes to its fee schedule on April 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Prior to February 3, 2020, fee code PR represented orders
that removed liquidity from EDGX using the ROUQ routing strategy.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88154 (February 7,
2020) 85 FR 8327 (February 13, 2020) (SR-CboeEDGX-2020-006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly-competitive
market

in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or
incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only
one of 13 registered and operational equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\5\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 20% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary
(March 26, 2020), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/. This market share percentage is based on a
Month-to-Date volume summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model whereby it pays
credits to Members that add liquidity and assesses fees to those that
remove liquidity. The Exchange's fee schedule sets forth the standard
rebates and fees applied per share for orders that provide and remove
liquidity, respectively. Particularly, for securities at or above
$1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate of $0.00170 per share
for orders that add liquidity and assesses a fee of $0.00270 per share
for orders that remove liquidity. The Exchange believes that the ever-
shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month
demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or
discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the
Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can readily trade
on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues
to be more favorable.
    In response to the competitive environment, the Exchange offers
tiered pricing that provides Members opportunities to qualify for
higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume criteria and
thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides incremental incentives for
Members to strive for higher or different tier levels by offering
increasingly higher discounts or enhanced benefits for satisfying
increasingly more stringent criteria or different criteria. For
example, pursuant to footnote 3 of the fee schedule, the Exchange
currently offers a Retail Volume Tier that provides Members with an
enhanced rebate of $0.0037 for liquidity adding orders that yield fee
code ``ZA'',\6\ which generally has a rebate of $0.00320. To qualify
for the Retail Volume Tier, a Member must add retail order ADV \7\
(i.e., yielding fee code ZA) of greater than or equal to 0.50% of the
TCV.\8\ Therefore, the Retail Volume Tier is designed to encourage
Members that provide liquidity adding retail orders on the Exchange to
increase their order flow, thereby contributing to a deeper and more
liquid market to the benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Fee code ``ZA'' is associated with retail orders that remove
[sic] liquidity.
    \7\ ``Average Daily Volume'' or ``ADV'' means average daily
volume calculated as the number of shares added to, removed from, or
routed by, the Exchange, or any combination or subset thereof, per
day. ADV is calculated on a monthly basis.
    \8\ ``Total Consolidated Volume'' or ``TCV'' means consolidated
volume calculated as the volume reported by all exchanges and trade
reporting facilities to a consolidated transaction reporting plan
for the month for which the fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to add an additional Retail Volume Tier,
Tier 1, and to rename the existing Retail Volume Tier to Tier 2.
Proposed Tier 1 would provide an enhanced rebate of $0.0034 for
liquidity adding orders that yield fee code ``ZA''. To qualify for
proposed Tier 1, a Member must (1) have retail Step-Up Add TCV \9\ from
February 2020 of equal to or greater than 0.05%, and (2) add retail
order ADV (i.e., yielding fee code ZA) of equal to or greater than
0.20% of the TCV. In contrast to the existing Retail Volume Tier, under
the proposed Tier 1 Members must satisfy a lower retail order ADV as a
percentage of TCV and must also satisfy the Step-Up Add TCV threshold,
which is designed to encourage growth (i.e., Members must increase
their relative liquidity each month over a predetermined baseline (in
this case the month being February 2020)). Overall, the proposed
criteria are designed to encourage Members to increase their order
flow, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market, which
benefits all market participants and provides greater execution
opportunities on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this benefits
all Members by enhancing overall market quality and contributing
towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem. The Exchange notes
that the proposed tier is available to all Retail Member Organizations
(``RMOs'') and is competitively achievable for all RMOs that submit
liquidity adding retail order flow, in that, all firms that submit the
requisite liquidity adding retail order flow could compete to meet the
tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Step-Up Add TCV'' means Average Daily Add Volume
(``ADAV'') as a percentage of TCB [sic] in the relevant baseline
month subtracted from current ADAV as a percentage of TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate fee code ``PR''
from the Standard Rates table of the Exchange's fee schedule. The PR
fee code was eliminated in all other places from the Exchange's fee
schedule effective February 2, 2020; \10\ however, fee code PR was
inadvertently not removed from the Standard Rates table. As such, the
Exchange is now seeking to eliminate fee code PR from the Standard
Rates table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
requirements of Section 6(b)(4),\12\ in particular, as it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The Exchange operates
in a highly-competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed amendment to add
an additional Retail Volume Tier is reasonable because it provides an
additional opportunity for Members to receive an enhanced rebate by
means of liquidity-adding retail orders. The Exchange notes that
relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted
by other exchanges,\13\ and are reasonable, equitable and non-
discriminatory because they are open to all Members on an equal basis
and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably
related to (i) the value of an exchange's market quality, and (ii)
associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of
liquidity provision and/or growth patterns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Nasdaq, Price List, Rebate to Add Displayed Designated
Retail Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures
to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that
apply based upon Members achieving certain volume and/or growth
thresholds. These competing pricing schedules, moreover, are presently
comparable to those that the

Exchange provides, including the pricing of comparable tiers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id. Nasdaq offer rebates ranging from $0.00325 up to
$0.0033 for Add Displayed Designated Retail Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed Retail Volume Tier is
a reasonable means to encourage Members to grow their overall liquidity
adding retail order flow to the Exchange based on increasing their
daily total added retail order ADV above a percentage of the TCV.
Particularly, the Exchange believes that adopting an additional Retail
Volume Tier based on a Member's liquidity adding retail orders will
encourage retail order liquidity providing Members to provide for a
deeper, more liquid market, and, as a result, increased execution
opportunities at improved price levels and, thus, overall order flow.
The Exchange believes that these increases will benefit all Members by
contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
Increased overall order flow benefits all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, providing greater execution incentives and
opportunities, offering additional flexibility for all investors to
enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price discovery,
promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. The
proposed enhanced rebate per share amount also does not represent a
significant departure from the rebates currently offered, or required
criteria, under the Exchange's existing Retail Volume Tier. For
example, the rebate provided under the existing Retail Volume Tier, for
which, as stated, a Member must have a daily volume add retail order
ADV of 0.50% or greater than the TCV, is $0.0037 per share. In other
words, under this tier, Members receive an enhanced rebate from the
standard $0.0032 rebate for orders yielding fee code ``ZA''. Therefore,
the proposed enhanced rebate under Tier 1 ($0.0034) is comparable to
the enhanced rebate currently offered under the Retail Volume Tier.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable
allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because all RMOs
are eligible for the proposed Retail Volume Tier, and would have the
opportunity to meet the proposed Tier 1 criteria and receive the
proposed enhanced rebate if such criteria is met. The proposed tier is
designed as an incentive to any and all RMOs interested in meeting the
tier criteria to submit additional liquidity adding retail order flow
to achieve the proposed discount. Without having a view of activity on
other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of
knowing whether this proposed rule change would definitely result in
any RMOs qualifying for this tier. While the proposed tier is only
applicable to RMOs, the Exchange does not believe it is discriminatory
as the Exchange offers similar rebates to non-RMO order flow.\15\ While
the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the proposed
tier will impact RMO activity, the Exchange anticipates that at up to
three RMOs will be able to compete for and reach the proposed tier. The
Exchange also notes that the proposed tier will not adversely impact
any RMO's pricing or their ability to qualify for other rebate tiers.
Rather, should a RMO not meet the proposed criteria, the Member will
merely not receive an enhanced rebate. Furthermore, the proposed fee
would uniformly apply to all RMOs that meet the required criteria under
the proposed Retail Volume Tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See e.g., the Add Volume Tiers in the Exchange's Fee
Schedule which provides an enhanced rebate to all Members that add
liquidity meeting certain criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above,
the Exchange believes that the proposed addition of another Retail
Volume Tier would encourage the submission of additional liquidity
adding retail order flow to a public exchange, thereby promoting market
depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution opportunities, as
well as price discovery and transparency for all Members. As a result,
the Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the
Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition
among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual
stocks for all types of orders, large and small.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
Retail Volume Tier change applies to all RMOs equally in that all RMOs
are eligible for the proposed tier, have a reasonable opportunity to
meet the tier's criteria and will all receive the enhanced rebate if
such criteria is met. Additionally the proposed change is designed to
attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that the modified tier criteria would incentivize market participants
to direct liquidity adding retail orders and, as a result, executable
order flow and improved price transparency, to the Exchange. Greater
overall order flow and pricing transparency benefits all market
participants on the Exchange by providing more trading opportunities,
enhancing market quality, and continuing to encourage Members to send
orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market
ecosystem, which benefits all market participants.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. As previously discussed, the
Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous
alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order
flow, including 12 other equities exchanges, and off-exchange venues
and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents
a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available
information, no single equities exchange has more than 20% of the
market share.\17\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing
power in the execution of order flow. Indeed, participants can readily
choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues
if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \18\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C.
Circuit stated as follows:``[n]o one disputes that competition for
order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S.

national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the
broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide
range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no
exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted'
because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in
the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . . ''.\19\
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change
imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 4.
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \19\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (DC Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 \20\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \21\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-015 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 No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-015. 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 No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-015, and should be submitted
on or before May 1, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07553 Filed 4-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 30954]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12355]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA 2013-0058]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection: Driver Qualification Files

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
``Driver Qualification (DQ) Files'' to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for its review and approval. Motor carriers must maintain
a DQ file on each employee-driver and document therein that the
individual meets the minimum qualification requirements for a driver of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The Agency's
estimate of the number of drivers subject to these requirements has
been revised to exclude any consideration of drivers and motor carriers
operating exclusively in intrastate commerce. In addition, this
revision request includes an updated estimate of the interstate drivers
and an increase in the estimated annual burden hours for this ICR. The
bulk of the increase in burden hours is the result of a more accurate
Agency estimate of the number of job openings for CMV drivers offered
each year. On March 5, 2013, FMCSA published a Federal Register notice
allowing for a 60-day comment period on this ICR. The agency received
five comments in response to that notice.

DATES: Please send your comments to this notice by June 24, 2013. OMB
must receive your comments by this date to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2013-0058. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Driver Qualification Files.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0004.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved ICR.
    Respondents: Motor carriers and drivers of commercial motor
vehicles.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 46,900,000.
    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes (average).
    Expiration Date: May 31, 2013.
    Frequency of Response: Responses to some regulatory requirements of
the driver qualification rules occur on a random basis. Other responses
occur more predictably. Some responses recur; others do not. For
example, motor carriers are required to obtain and review the motor
vehicle driving record of their drivers from the State of licensure.
They must complete this task at the time of hiring and again every year
thereafter. The time-of-hiring requirement results in a random
frequency of response, but, thereafter, the annual requirement results
in a fixed frequency of response.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,800,000 hours [5,400,000 hours for
driver hiring + 300,000 hours for annual review of driver
qualifications + 100,000 hours for driver review and rebuttal of safety
performance history = 5,800,000].

Background

    The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 [Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98
Stat. 2832 (October 30, 1984)] requires the Secretary of Transportation
to issue regulations pertaining to CMV safety. These regulations are
also issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 504, 31133,
31136, and 31502. Part 391 of volume 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) contains the qualification requirements for drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce.
    Motor carriers may not require or permit an unqualified driver to
operate a CMV (49 CFR 391.11). The foremost proof of driver
qualification is the information that part 391 requires be collected
and maintained in the DQ file (49 CFR 391.51). Motor carriers must
obtain this information from sources specified in the regulations.
These include the driver, previous employers of the driver, and
officials of the State of driver licensure.
    Motor carriers are not required to forward driver qualification
information to FMCSA, but must maintain the information in a DQ file.
The DQ file must be updated annually (49 CFR 391.25). The DQ file of
each driver must be made available to State and Federal safety
investigators on demand.
    This request for OMB approval revises the Agency's previous
Paperwork Reduction Act estimate of the information collection burden
of the DQ file requirements.

Public Comments Invited

    FMCSA requests that you comment on any aspect of this information
collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary
for FMCSA to perform its functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated
burden, (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and
clarity of the collected information, and (4) ways that the burden
could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected
information. The agency will summarize or include your comments in the
request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

     Issued on: May 14, 2013.
G. Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology
and Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-12355 Filed 5-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34648-34649]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15546]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0102; FMCSA-2015-0329; FMCSA-2015-0328; FMCSA-
2015-0326; FMCSA-2015-0327]

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 15
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 stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before August
20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0102; FMCSA-2015-0329;
FMCSA-2015-0328; FMCSA-2015-0326; and FMCSA-2015-0327 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for five years if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA
grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with
the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to driver 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.
    49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision 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 15 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 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 two-year period.

II. 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, FMCSA will

take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 15
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the hearing requirement. The 15 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 (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information
System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL
holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's
Licensing Agency (SDLA). 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 two years is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.
    As of June 17, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 2 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
    Tanya Bland, (MD); and Joseph Woodle (AL)
    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0326. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 17, 2018, and will expire on June
17, 2020.
    As of June 24, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 4 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Paul Aseka (FL)
John Dumars (FL)
Michael McCarthy (MN)
Fernando Velasquez (TX)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0328. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 24, 2018, and will expire on June
24, 2020.
    As of June 25, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, Daniel Tricolici (MA) 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-2015-0327. The
exemption is applicable as of June 25, 2018, and will expire on June
25, 2020.
    As of June 27, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 4 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.

Glenn Ferguson (TX)
Anthony Panto (NJ)
Wayne Turner (IL)
Robert Wilson (TN)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0329. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 27, 2018, and will expire on June
27, 2020.
    As of June 29, 2018, and accordance with U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,
the following 4 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for
interstate CMV drivers.

Andrew Dueschle (TX)
Alfredo Ramirez (TX)
Julie Ramirez (TX)
Hayden Teesdale (TX)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0102. Their
exemptions are applicable June 29, 2018, and will expire on June 29,
2020.

IV. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49
CFR 390.5; and (2) report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA;
and (3) each driver 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 two years
unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if:
(1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the
exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety
than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the
exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

V. 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.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 19 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the hearing
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless
revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: July 12, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-15546 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 06/12/2007 01:14 PM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

more agency comments

Hi Lydia,

Here are some more comments.

Cheers,

Rob

________________________________________________

Robert Johansson, Ph.D.

OMB/OIRA/NREA

725 17th St. NW, Room 10202

Washington, DC 20503

(P)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(F)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>