[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2852-2853]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00810]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-38-001]

Kingbird Solar A, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Kingbird Solar A, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 1, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the

above list. They are also available for electronic 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>.

    Dated: January 12, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00810 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 80 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19438-19445]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0031]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation.

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 50 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0031 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 numbers 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 Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments 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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

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 W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-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 2-year period. The 50 individuals listed
in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the
diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate
the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the
exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by
statute.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Gerald G. Blacklock

    Mr. Blacklock, 65, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Blacklock understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Blacklock meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Ronald J. Boe

    Mr. Boe, 67, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Boe understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Boe meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic

retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Robert E. Branigan, Jr.

    Mr. Branigan, 62, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Branigan understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Branigan meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Pennsylvania.

Wayne P. Cashion

    Mr. Cashion, 61, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cashion understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cashion meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Tennessee.

Randall J. Claeys

    Mr. Claeys, 57, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Claeys understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Claeys meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.

Ronald G. Dalle

    Mr. Dalle, 54, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dalle understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dalle meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Vincenzo Dellisola

    Mr. Dellisola, 79, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dellisola understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dellisola meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from New York.

Gary L.A. Driggers

    Mr. Driggers, 35, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Driggers understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Driggers meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from
Georgia.

Daniel L. Fernberg

    Mr. Fernberg, 24, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fernberg understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fernberg meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.

Steven A. Grover

    Mr. Grover, 59, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Grover understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Grover meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from
Colorado.

Kenneth L. Hawthorne

    Mr. Hawthorne, 59, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies

that Mr. Hawthorne understands diabetes management and monitoring, has
stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a
CMV safely. Mr. Hawthorne meets the requirements of the vision standard
at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an
operator's license from Mississippi.

Matthew A. Huebner

    Mr. Huebner, 40, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Huebner understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Huebner meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.

James C. Hylton

    Mr. Hylton, 41, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hylton understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hylton meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Virginia.

Michael A. Jacobson

    Mr. Jacobson, 56, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jacobson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jacobson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Iowa.

David C. Jossi

    Mr. Jossi, 66, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jossi understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jossi meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Idaho.

Randy J. Kean

    Mr. Kean, 55, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kean understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kean meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds an operator's license from Kentucky.

Edward T. Klauck

    Mr. Klauck, 61, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Klauck understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Klauck meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Missouri.

Carl R. Knapp

    Mr. Knapp, 60, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Knapp understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Knapp meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

Robert E. Knox

    Mr. Knox, 44, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Knox understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Knox meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.

Oris Lormeus

    Mr. Lormeus, 56, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the

assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lormeus understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lormeus meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.

James V. Maiorana

    Mr. Maiorana, 51, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Maiorana understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Maiorana meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New
York.

Jerry S. Malloy

    Mr. Malloy, 55, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Malloy understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Malloy meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Oklahoma.

James E. Mann, Jr.

    Mr. Mann, 58, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mann understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mann meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class C CDL from North Carolina.

Tremaine E. Mathews

    Mr. Mathews, 21, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mathews understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mathews meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.

Archie D. McCracken

    Mr. McCracken, 51, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McCracken understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCracken meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from North Carolina.

William M. Nafus

    Mr. Nafus, 58, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nafus understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nafus meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Pennsylvania.

David S.E. Patton

    Mr. Patton, 24, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Patton understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Patton meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Arkansas.

Andrew J. Peard

    Mr. Peard, 31, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Peard understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Peard meets the

requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Nebraska.

Ronald C. Pennyman

    Mr. Pennyman, 49, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pennyman understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pennyman meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.

Matthew B. Phillips

    Mr. Phillips, 38, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Phillips understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Phillips meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.

Larry P. Pruitt

    Mr. Pruitt, 57, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pruitt understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pruitt meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North
Carolina.

Jose L. Ramos

    Mr. Ramos, 51, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ramos understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ramos meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Mexico.

Danny L. Russell

    Mr. Russell, 51, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Russell understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Russell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.

Ronald M. Salas

    Mr. Salas, 68, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Salas understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Salas meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from California.

Roger W. Senff

    Mr. Senff, 54, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Senff understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Senff meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wyoming.

David M. Seswick

    Mr. Seswick, 64, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Seswick understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Seswick meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Ohio.

Charles W. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 59, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the

past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic
episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr.
Smith understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable
control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
safely. Mr. Smith meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's
license from Virginia.

Jeffery A. Stone

    Mr. Stone, 48, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stone understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stone meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.

William C. Suozzo

    Mr. Suozzo, 62, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Suozzo understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Suozzo meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from
Pennsylvania.

Sean M. Sweeney

    Mr. Sweeney, 36, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sweeney understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sweeney meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from New Jersey.

Thomas W. Szaloy

    Mr. Szaloy, 57, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Szaloy understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Szaloy meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Mexico.

John A. Tagtgren

    Mr. Tagtgren, 46, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tagtgren understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tagtgren meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Michael E. Thompson

    Mr. Thompson, 49, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thompson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thompson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Washington.

John A. Wargo

    Mr. Wargo, 32, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wargo understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wargo meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from West Virginia.

Michael E. Weideman

    Mr. Weideman, 65, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Weideman understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Weideman meets the

requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from South Dakota.

Monty A. Weigum

    Mr. Weigum, 36, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Weigum understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Weigum meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Dakota.

Zachery B.J. Weihert

    Mr. Weihert, 24, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Weihert understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Weihert meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.

James M. Wenzel

    Mr. Wenzel, 60, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wenzel understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wenzel meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Steven G. Wilcox

    Mr. Wilcox, 61, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wilcox understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wilcox meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from California.

Nathaniel D. Winston

    Mr. Winston, 60, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Winston understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Winston meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.

III. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary.
    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and
medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of
the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70
FR 67777), remain in effect.

IV. Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket number FMCSA-2017-0031 and click
the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!''

button on the right hand side of the page. On the new page, enter
information required including the specific section of this document to
which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

V. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-2017-0031 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: April 19, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-08513 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 212 (Friday, November 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61066]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0671]

Special Local Regulations; Savannah Harbor Boat Parade of Lights
and Fireworks, Savannah River, Savannah, GA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Captain of the Port Savannah will enforce the special
local regulation for the Savannah Harbor Boat Parade of Lights and
Fireworks from 5:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on November 27, 2021. This
action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the
Savannah River during the Savannah Harbor Boat Parade of Lights and
Fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel
may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the designated
area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Savannah or a
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.701, table 1 to Sec.  100.701,
paragraph (d), Item 4, will be enforced from 5 p.m. until 10 p.m., on
November 27, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email LT Alex McConnell, Marine
Safety Unit Savannah Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 240, or email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulation for the Savannah Harbor Parade of Lights and Fireworks
in 33 CFR 100.701 Table 1 to Sec.  100.701, paragraph (d), Item 4, from
5 p.m. until 10 p.m., on November 27, 2021. Under the provisions of 33
CFR 100.701, all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering the
regulated area unless they receive permission to do so from the Captain
of the Port Savannah, or designated representatives. This action is to
provide notice of enforcement action of the regulated area that will
encompass the Savannah River in Savannah, GA from the Talmadge Bridge
near River Street, coordinates 32[deg]05'20'' N, 081[deg]05'56.3'' W,
and proceeding down river to a line drawn at 146 degrees true from day
board 62, approximate coordinates are: 32[deg]04'48.7'' N,
081[deg]04'47.9'' W.
    Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area,
but may not anchor, block, loiter in, impede the transit of festival
participants or official patrol vessels or enter the regulated area
without approval from the Captain of the Port Savannah or a designated
representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal,
State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area via Local Notice
to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated
representatives.

K.A. Broyles,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Savannah, GA.
[FR Doc. 2021-24076 Filed 11-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77077-77079]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29971]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73859; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a
Proposed Rule Change Amending Exchange Rule 6.60 To Enhance the
Functionality of the Trade Collar Protection Mechanism

December 17, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On October 24, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc., (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 6.60 relating to the
Exchange's ``Trade Collar Protection'' mechanism for options. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on November 13, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73543 (November 6,
2014), 79 FR 67488 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange applies Trade Collar Protection to prevent the
immediate execution of certain orders at prices outside of a specified
parameter (referred to as a ``Trading Collar'').\4\ This Trade Collar
Protection mechanism is set forth in Exchange Rule 6.60(a), but the
Exchange has proposed to amend Exchange Rule 6.60(a) so that the rule
accurately reflects how the mechanism operates.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See id. Trading Collars are determined by the Exchange on a
class-by-class basis and, unless announced otherwise via Trader
Update, are the same value as the bid-ask differential guidelines
established pursuant to Exchange Rule 6.37(b)(1). See id. The
Exchange also notes that that the Trade Collar Protection mechanism
is not available for quotes or for orders with execution conditions
immediate-or-cancel (``IOC''), all-or-none (``AON''), fill-or-kill
(``FOK'') and NOW. See id.; see also Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(3).
    \5\ See id.

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

    The Trade Collar Protection mechanism applies in two scenarios: (1)
The mechanism prevents the execution of certain orders when the
difference between the National Best Offer (``NBO'') and the National
Best Bid (``NBB'') is greater than one Trading Collar; \6\ and (2) the
mechanism prevents the execution of the balance of a buy order if it
were to execute at a price that is the NBO plus a Trading Collar (or a
price that is the NBB minus a Trading Collar for an eligible sell
order).\7\ In the first scenario, the Exchange will display the order
at a price equal to the NBO minus one Trading Collar for sell orders or
the NBB plus one Trading Collar for buy orders (the ``collared
order'').\8\ The Exchange will then attempt to execute or route the
collared order to buy (sell) against any contra interest priced within
one Trading Collar above (below) the displayed price of the collared
order.\9\ After a period of one second, if the collared order has not
been executed or its price has not been recalculated due to changes in
the market, the Trade Collar Protection mechanism will improve the
collared order's displayed price by an amount equal to an additional
Trading Collar.\10\ The Exchange notes that the collared order will re-
price before the expiration of one second as a result of certain
changes in the market; specifically, an update to the NBBO that
improves the same side of the market as the collared order will cause
the collared order to be redisplayed at the same price as the updated
NBBO.\11\ A Limit Order (which is not an IOC Order, AON Order, FOK
Order or NOW Order) on the same side of the market priced better than
one Trading Collar from the collared order will also become subject to
Trade Collar Protection and will cause the collared order to improve by
one Trading Collar (which will redisplay at the new price and
additional size of the new Limit Order).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(1)(i).
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(1)(ii).
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(4)(A).
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(4)(B).
    \10\ See Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(4)(C)(iii).
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67488.
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second scenario arises when the difference between the NBB and
NBO is within the bid-ask differential guidelines and an incoming
market order or marketable limit order is partially executed upon entry
but execution of the balance of the order would be at a price that is
more than a Trading Collar away from the NBBO at entry.\13\ Pursuant to
Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(5), the balance of the partially executed order
will be subject to Trade Collar Protection and displayed at the last
sale price,\14\ and thereafter handled the same way as an order
collared in the first scenario.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67489.
    \14\ See id.; see also Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(5). However, if
there is an opportunity for trading within one Trading Collar of the
last sale price, the buy (sell) order will be displayed at the NBB
(NBO) established at the time of the initial execution. See id.
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed to amend Exchange Rule 6.60(a) so that
the description of the Trade Collar Protection mechanism conforms to
its function. First, Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(1)(i) provides that the
Exchange will prevent the immediate execution of market orders and
marketable limit orders if the width of the bid-ask differential of the
NBBO is greater than one Trading Collar. However, the Exchange states
that it only prevents the immediate execution of market orders (and not
marketable limit orders) when the width of the bid-ask differential of
the NBBO is greater than one Trading Collar.\16\ According to the
Exchange, marketable limit orders (i.e., orders with limit prices that
are executable against the NBB or NBO), execute immediately regardless
of the width of the bid-ask differential of the NBBO.\17\ Accordingly,
the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to marketable limit
orders in Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67489.
    \17\ The Exchange states that it believes that an order with a
limit price evidences specific interest at which the submitting
market participant is willing to trade and, therefore, does not need
the protection of the Trade Collar Protection mechanism. See id. The
Exchange notes that marketable limit orders remain subject to the
protections of the Exchange's ``Limit Order Filter'' as provided in
in Exchange Rule 6.60(b). See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to delete Exchange Rule
6.60(a)(4)(C)(iv), which provides that a market order that arrives on
the same side of the market as a collared order will also be subject to
Trade Collar Protection and will be displayed at the same price as the
collared order. The Exchange has not yet deployed this functionality
and, as such, Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(4)(C)(iv) is not an accurate
reflection of the Trade Collar Protection mechanism's current operation
in this regard.\18\ Instead of joining the resting collared order at
its displayed price, an incoming market order to buy (sell) on the same
side of the market as a resting collared order actually results in both
orders being displayed at a price equal to one Trading Collar above
(below) the resting collared order's displayed price.\19\ The Exchange
notes that this is what occurs when a marketable limit order to buy
(sell) is received on the same side of the market as a resting collared
order and priced more than one Trading Collar above (below) the resting
collared order's displayed price.\20\ This handling of later-arriving
marketable limit orders is currently set forth in Exchange Rule
6.60(a)(4)(C)(ii). Since market orders are actually handled the same
way, in connection with the proposed deletion of Exchange Rule
6.60(a)(4)(C)(iv), the Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule
6.60(a)(4)(C)(ii) to broaden its applicability to all marketable
orders, which include both marketable limit orders and market
orders.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id. The Exchange states that it intends to incorporate
this functionality in the near future as it believes that the
functionality would be beneficial to the market. See id.
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67489.
    \21\ See proposed Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(4)(C)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Exchange proposes to delete a cross reference to
Exchange Rule 6.37(b)(1) in Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(2), which provides
the bid-ask differentials used to determine the applicable value of the
Trading Collar. Exchange Rule 6.37(b)(1) provides that the bid price
for an option contract be used as the reference price for the bid-ask
differential applicable to both buy and sell orders, but the Trade
Collar Protection mechanism instead uses the NBO as the reference price
for the value of the Trade Collar applicable to sell orders (and uses
the NBB as the reference price for the Trade Collar applicable to buy
orders).\22\ Accordingly, in place of the current cross reference to
Exchange Rule 6.37(b)(1) in Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(2), the Exchange
proposes to adopt new subparagraphs (a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B), which
codify the same numerical values as provided currently in Exchange Rule
6.37(b)(1) but make clear that the reference price for the applicable
Trading Collar is the NBB for buy orders and the NBO for sell orders
(rather than both values being keyed off of the NBB as Exchange Rule
6.37(b)(1) provides).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67489. The Exchange states
that it bases the value of the Trade Collar on the NBB for buy
orders because it believes that a market participant that is looking
to buy would derive its price off of what other market participants
are willing to pay (i.e., the prevailing bid), and similarly bases
the value of the Trade Collar on the NBO for sell orders because it
believes that a market participant that is looking to sell would
derive its price off of what other market participants are willing
to sell (i.e., the prevailing offer). See id.
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes some additional clarifying changes. The
Exchange proposes to amend Exchange

Rule 6.60(a) to delete the terms ``inbound'' and ``incoming'' where
currently used in the rule because Trade Collar Protection applies to
resting orders as well as inbound or incoming orders.\24\ The Exchange
also proposes to delete the reference in Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(3) to
the cancellation of IOC Orders, AON Orders, FOK Orders and NOW Orders
if not immediately executed, as AON orders do not cancel if they are
not immediately executed.\25\ Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend
Exchange Rule 6.37(b)(1)(E) to rectify a typographical error--Exchange
Rule 6.37(b)(1)(E) states that the bid-ask differential should be no
more than $1 when the last bid is $20.10 or more, but the rule should
refer instead to a last bid of $20.01 or more.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id.; see also proposed Exchange Rule 6.60(a).
    \25\ See proposed Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(3); see also Notice,
supra note 3, at 67489. The Exchange also proposes to capitalize the
term ``limit order'' as used in Exchange Rule 6.60(a)(4)(D) to
conform with the use of that term in the rest of the rule. See id.
at 67489-67490.
    \26\ See proposed Exchange Rule 6.37(b)(1)(E); see also Notice,
supra note 3, at 67489.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\27\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\28\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the proposal
assists with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and protects
investors by correcting inaccurate language in Exchange Rule 6.60(a)
and clarifying the existing Trade Collar Protection functionality so
that market participants can better understand how the Exchange handles
certain orders in times of market dislocation. In addition, the
Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the proposed
functionality of the Trade Collar Protection components is consistent
with the Act. In particular, the Exchange believes that its proposal to
base Trading Collar values on the NBB for buy orders and the NBO for
sell orders could remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market by using a benchmark from which a market
participant would most likely derive its price.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67490; see also supra note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the operation of the Trade Collar
Protection mechanism set forth in the proposal is consistent with the
Act. In addition, the Commission believes that the revised description
of this mechanism should increase transparency with respect to how the
mechanism operates and enhance investors' understanding of how the
mechanism may affect their orders in certain market conditions.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal is reasonably
designed to help prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\30\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2014-14) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29971 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37126-37129]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14627]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2013-0233; FRL-9825-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Kansas; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of four Kansas State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submissions. EPA is approving portions of two SIP
submissions addressing the applicable infrastructure requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 and 2006 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). These infrastructure requirements are designed to
ensure that the structural components

of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the
state's responsibilities under the CAA. EPA is also taking final action
to approve two additional SIP submissions from Kansas, one addressing
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in Kansas,
and another addressing the requirements applicable to any board or body
which approves permits or enforcement orders of the CAA, both of which
support requirements associated with infrastructure SIPs. The rationale
for this action is explained in this notice and in more detail in the
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action, which was published on
April 17, 2013.

DATES: This rule will be effective July 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R07-OAR-2013-0233 for
this action. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas
66219 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours
in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lachala Kemp, Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7214; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we refer to EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following:

I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA's Response to Comment
III. Summary of EPA Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. Background and Purpose

    On April 17, 2013, EPA proposed to approve four Kansas SIP
submissions (78 FR 22827). EPA received the first submission on January
8, 2008, addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements relating to the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA received the second submission on
April 12, 2010, addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements relating
to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As originally detailed in the
proposed rulemaking, EPA had previously approved section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II)--Interstate and international transport
requirements of Kansas' January 8, 2008, SIP submission for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS (72 FR 10606, May 8, 2007); and EPA disapproved
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate and international transport
requirements of Kansas' April 12, 2010, SIP submission for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 43143, July 20, 2011). Therefore, we did
not propose to act on those portions in the April 17, 2013, proposed
rule since they had already been acted upon by EPA. With this final
action, we will have acted on both the January 8, 2008, and the April
10, 2010, submissions in their entirety, excluding those provisions
that are not within the scope of today's rulemaking as identified in
section IV of the April 17, 2013, proposed action for both the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submissions.
    The third submission was received by EPA on March 1, 2013. This
submission revises the Kansas rule found at Kansas Administrative
Regulations (KAR) 29-19-350 ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration
of Air Quality'' to incorporate by reference Federal rule changes
through July 1, 2011. These changes implement elements of the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations relating to
EPA's 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008) and certain elements of the ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' rule (75 FR 64864, October
20, 2010). On April 2, 2013, Kansas amended and clarified its
submission so that it no longer included specific provisions affected
by the January 22, 2013, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia court decision which vacated and remanded the provisions
concerning implementation of the PM2.5 SILs and vacated the
provisions adding the PM2.5 SMC that were promulgated as
part of the October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD Rule (Sierra Club v.
EPA, No. 10-1413 (filed December 17, 2010)). In addition, this rule
amendment defers the application of PSD permitting requirements to
carbon dioxide emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary
sources.
    The fourth submission was received by EPA on March 19, 2013. This
submission addresses the conflict of interest provisions in section 128
of the CAA as it relates to element E of the infrastructure SIP. In the
proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to ``parallel process'' the SIP
revision relating to these conflict of interest provisions. Under this
procedure, EPA proposed rulemaking action concurrently with the State
of Kansas' procedures for approving a SIP submission and amending its
regulations. Because Kansas did not receive any comments during its
public comment period and therefore the regulation revision adopted by
Kansas is identical to the draft regulation which EPA described in the
proposal, in today's action EPA is finalizing approval of the conflict
of interest provisions.
    In summary, EPA is taking final action today to approve these four
SIP submissions from Kansas. The first two submissions address the
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the
1997 and 2006 NAAQS for PM2.5. With this final action, we
will have acted on both the 1997 and 2006 submissions in their entirety
excluding those provisions that are not within the scope of the
rulemaking. EPA is also taking final action to approve two additional
SIP submissions from Kansas, one addressing the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in Kansas as it relates to
PM2.5, unless otherwise noted in EPA's proposed action on
April 17, 2013 (78 FR 22827), and another SIP revision addressing the
requirements of section 128 of the CAA, both of which support the
requirements associated with infrastructure SIPs.
    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened April 17,
2013, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed
on May 17, 2013. During this period, EPA received one comment from a
citizen, and one from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
(KDHE). The letters are available in the docket to today's final rule.
The citizen comment was in support of EPA's action, and we appreciate
the support for this rulemaking. No changes were made to this final
action based on this comment. Today's final action includes EPA's
response to KDHE's comment.

II. EPA's Response to Comment

    Comment: KDHE commented that EPA retract certain language in the
proposed rulemaking for today's final

action. The proposed rulemaking stated at 78 FR 22838: ``As described
under element C in section V of this rulemaking, states had an
obligation to address condensable PM emissions as a part of the 2008
PM2.5 NSR implementation rule. In Kansas' March 1, 2013, SIP
submission, Kansas incorporated by reference EPA's definition for
regulated NSR pollutant (formerly at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi)),
including the term `particulate matter emissions,' as inadvertently
promulgated in the 2008 NSR Rule. EPA is, however, proposing to approve
into the Kansas SIP the requirement that condensable PM be accounted
for in applicability determinations and in establishing emissions
limitations for PM2.5 and PM10 because it is more
stringent than the Federal requirement. Kansas can choose to initiate
further rulemaking to ensure consistency with Federal requirements.''
KDHE contends that its March 1, 2013, PSD SIP submission was intended
to align the state's PSD rules with the Federal rules and therefore is
not more stringent than Federal requirements.
    Response: After evaluating KDHE's comment, EPA agrees that KDHE's
March 1, 2013, submission did not include provisions that are more
stringent than the Federal requirements.

III. Summary of EPA Final Action

    Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions
or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the
infrastructure to address all applicable required elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented in the state. Therefore,
EPA is taking final action to approve Kansas' infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS for PM2.5 for the
following section 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements: (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II) (prongs 3 and 4), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L),
and (M). In addition, EPA is approving two SIP submissions, one
addressing the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in
Kansas as it relates to PM2.5, and another SIP revision
addressing the requirements of section 128 of the CAA, both of which
support the requirements associated with infrastructure SIPs.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 19, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 10, 2013.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart R--Kansas

0
2. In Sec.  52.870:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry for 28-
19-350.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding new entries (34),
(35), and (36) in numerical order at the end of the table.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                         EPA-Approved Kansas Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 State effective
     Kansas citation               Title               date         EPA approval date          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Kansas Department of Health and Environment Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Construction Permits and Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
28-19-350................  Prevention of             12/28/2012   6-20-13.............  Provisions of the 2010
                            Significant                           INSERT Federal         PM2.5 PSD--Increments,
                            Deterioration (PSD)                    Register  PAGE        SILs and SMCs rule (75
                            of Air Quality.                        NUMBER WHERE THE      FR 64865, October 20,
                                                                   DOCUMENT BEGINS].     2010) relating to SILs
                                                                                and SMCs that were
                                                                                affected by the January
                                                                                22, 2013 U.S. Court of
                                                                                Appeals decision are
                                                                                not SIP approved.
                                                                                Provisions of the 2002
                                                                                NSR reform rule
                                                                                relating to the Clean
                                                                                Unit Exemption,
                                                                                Pollution Control
                                                                                Projects, and exemption
                                                                                from recordkeeping
                                                                                provisions for certain
                                                                                sources using the
                                                                                actual-to-projected-
                                                                                actual emissions
                                                                                projections test are
                                                                                not SIP approved. In
                                                                                addition, we have not
                                                                                approved Kansas rule
                                                                                incorporating EPA's
                                                                                2007 revision of the
                                                                                definition of
                                                                                ``chemical processing
                                                                                plants'' (the ``Ethanol
                                                                                Rule,'' 72 FR 24060
                                                                                (May 1, 2007) or EPA's
                                                                                2008 ``fugitive
                                                                                emissions rule,'' 73 FR
                                                                                77882 (December 19,
                                                                                2008).

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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Kansas Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
    Name of non-regulatory SIP      geographic area or       State       EPA approval date       Explanation
            provision               nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(34) Section 110(a)(2)             Statewide..........       1/08/2008  6-20-13 INSERT       This action
 Infrastructure Requirements for                                         CITATION OF          addresses the
 the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                   PUBLICATION].        following CAA
                                                                                elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II)
                                                                                (prongs 3 and 4),
                                                                                D(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M),
                                                                                except as noted.
(35) Section 110(a)(2)             Statewide..........       4/12/2010  6-20-13 [INSERT      This action
 Infrastructure Requirements for                                         CITATION OF          addresses the
 the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                   PUBLICATION].        following CAA
                                                                                elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II)
                                                                                (prongs 3 and 4),
                                                                                D(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M),
                                                                                except as noted.
(36) Section 128 Declaration:      Statewide..........       3/19/2013  6-20-13 [INSERT      ...................
 Kansas Department of Health and                                         CITATION OF
 Environment Representation and                                          PUBLICATION].
 Conflicts of Interest
 Provisions, Kansas Revised
 Statutes (KSA). KSA 46-221, KSA
 46-229, KSA 46-247(c).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-14627 Filed 6-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P