[Federal Register: January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 17)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4270]
[DOCID:fr27ja10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0604; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-18]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tompkinsville, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
published in the Federal Register September 14, 2009 that establishes
Class E Airspace at Tompkinsville--Monroe County Airport,
Tompkinsville, KY.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on September 14, 2009 (74 FR 46890),
Docket No. FAA-2009-0604; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-18. The FAA uses
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule
where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment.
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on
December 17, 2009. No adverse comments were received, and thus this
notice confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 14, 2010.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-1373 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17287-17289]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0030]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 11 individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis
of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0030 using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number (FMCSA-2023-0030) in the keyword box and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, and click on the ``Comment'' button. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W64-224,

Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. Office
hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0030), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2023-0030. Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-
Older),'' choose the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button,
and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. FMCSA will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.

B. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number (FMCSA-2023-0030) in the keyword box and click ``Search.'' Next,
sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first notice
listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
ET Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone
is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments
from the public on the exemption request. 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 (Federal Docket Management System), which can be
reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices, the comments are searchable by the name of
the submitter.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). 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.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners (MEs) in determining whether
drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV
in interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The criteria states that if an individual has had a sudden episode
of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause
that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that
person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss
of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by
the ME in consultation with the treating physician. Before
certification is considered, it is suggested that a 6-month waiting
period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting
period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete
neurological examination. If the results of the examination are
negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver
may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver has had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has recovered fully from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication.
    Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure
medication, and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate
a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a
single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a 5-year
period or more.
    As a result of MEs misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation,
numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in
interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified ME based on
the physical qualification standards and medical best practices.
    On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a notice of final
disposition titled, ``Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications;
Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders,'' (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant
requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory
requirement that interstate CMV drivers have ``no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.'' Since that time, the Agency has published additional
notices granting requests from individuals for exemptions from the
regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders

prohibition in Sec.  391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the criteria in
the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (78 FR
3069).

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Keith Dohrmann

    Keith Dohrmann is a 38-year-old class D license holder in
Minnesota. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free
since January 2012. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage
and frequency remaining the same since October 2018. Their physician
states that they are supportive of Keith Dohrmann receiving an
exemption.

Wallace Ferguson

    Wallace Ferguson is a 61-year-old class R license holder in
Colorado. They have a history of partial onset epilepsy and have been
seizure free since 2011. They take anti-seizure medication with the
dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2012. Their physician
states that they are supportive of Wallace Ferguson receiving an
exemption.

Derek Jazdzewski

    Derek Jazdzewski is a 33-year-old class D license holder in
Wisconsin. They have a history of seizure disorder and have been
seizure free since September 2013. They take anti-seizure medication
with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2016. Their
physician states that they are supportive of Derek Jazdzewski receiving
an exemption.

Charles E. Johnson

    Charles E. Johnson is a 47-year-old class A license holder in
Kansas. They have a history of non-intractable absence epilepsy and
have been seizure free since 2011. They take anti-seizure medication
with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2015. Their
physician states that they are supportive of Charles E. Johnson
receiving an exemption.

Michael Littleton

    Michael Littleton is a 47-year-old class R license holder in
Colorado. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free
since January 2014. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage
and frequency remaining the same since January 2014. Their physician
states that they are supportive of Michael Littleton receiving an
exemption.

Robert Newhand

    Robert Newhand is a 32-year-old class D license holder in New York.
They have a history of partial symptomatic epilepsy and have been
seizure free since 2015. They take anti-seizure medication with the
dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2015. Their physician
states that they are supportive of Robert Newhand receiving an
exemption.

Kristopher Pettitt

    Kristopher Pettitt is a 42-year-old class C license holder in
California. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free
since November 2011. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage
and frequency remaining the same since 2011. Their physician states
that they are supportive of Kristopher Pettitt receiving an exemption.

Taylor Ramey

    Taylor Ramey is a 32-year-old class C license holder in Texas. They
have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2013. They
take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since May 2013. Their physician states that they are
supportive of Taylor Ramey receiving an exemption.

Herbert Spike

    Herbert Spike is a 49-year-old class D license holder in
Connecticut. They have a history of generalized epilepsy and have been
seizure free since 2009. They take anti-seizure medication with the
dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2014. Their physician
states that they are supportive of Herbert Spike receiving an
exemption.

Scott Stone

    Scott Stone is a 50-year-old class BM commercial driver's license
holder in Wyoming. They have a history of epilepsy and have been
seizure free since 2004. They take anti-seizure medication with the
dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2004. Their physician
states that they are supportive of Scott Stone receiving an exemption.

Andrew Toler

    Andrew Toler is a 33-year-old class D license holder in Virginia.
They have a history of a single unprovoked seizure and have been
seizure free since 2012. They have not taken anti-seizure medication.
Their physician states that they are supportive of Andrew Toler
receiving an exemption.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), 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 under the DATES
section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-05853 Filed 3-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6317-6318]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01922]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 637-090]

Public Utility District No. 1 Chelan County; Notice of
Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No.: 637-090.
    c. Date Filed: July 25, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Public Utility District No. 1 Chelan County.
    e. Name of Project: Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Chelan River in Chelan
County near the City of Chelan, Washington.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Michelle Smith, Licensing and Compliance
Manager, Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, 327 North
Wenatchee Ave., Wenatchee, Washington 98801. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, ext
4180. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Lorance Yates at<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: is February 22, 2013.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Please include the project number (P-637-090) on any comments, motions,
or recommendations filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant has filed a request for
Commission approval to authorize the City of Chelan to expand an
existing 66-slip marina (a.k.a. Lakeshore Marina) of the Don Morse
Memorial Park to include a 9,652-square-foot expansion for an
additional 63 new slips. The slip width will be 20-feet wide and will
be added to the marina by extending three existing docks and installing
two new docks. A total of approximately 115 steel piles will be
installed for the new docks. Concrete panel walls associated with a new
fixed breakwater system will be driven into the substrate.
Approximately nine habitat logs would be situated waterward of the
ordinary high watermark beneath the breakwater to enhance near-shore
habitat. A swim float would be installed and anchored northwest of the
marina complex at an existing swim area. All proposed work will be done
in accordance with the various federal and state permits and approvals
previously acquired for the proposal.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) Bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must

set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: January 23, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01922 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14449-14450]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05688]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0986; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-25]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Bois Blanc Island, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Bois
Blanc Island, MI. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Bois Blanc Island
Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2013-0986/Airspace Docket No. 13-
AGL-25, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone:
817-321-7654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related
aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket
numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2013-0986/Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-25.'' The postcard will be
date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Bois Blanc
Island Airport, Bois Blanc, MI, to accommodate new standard instrument
approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013 and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish controlled airspace at Bois Blanc Island Airport,
Bois Blanc Island, MI.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9X,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013 and
effective September 15, 2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL MI E5 Bois Blanc Island, MI [New]

Bois Blanc Island Airport, MI
    (Lat. 45[deg]45'59'' N., long. 084[deg]30'14'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Bois Blanc Island Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 4, 2014.
Kent M. Wheeler,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-05688 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4479-4491]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 382 and 391

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0073]
RIN 2126-AB35

Harmonizing Schedule I Drug Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) amends
the physical qualifications for drivers and the instructions for the
medical examination report to clarify that drivers may not use Schedule
I drugs and be qualified to drive commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
under any circumstances. The rule harmonizes FMCSA's provisions
regarding pre-employment and return-to-duty test refusals with
corresponding Department of Transportation (DOT)-wide provisions.
Finally, the rule corrects inaccurate uses of the term ``actual
knowledge.''

DATES: This final rule is effective February 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: All background documents, comments, and materials related to
this rule may be viewed in docket number FMCSA-2011-0073 using either
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e- mail Angela Ward, Nurse Consultant, Medical Programs Office,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation
    A. Viewing Comments and Documents
    B. Privacy Act
II. Abbreviations
III. Background
    A. History
    B. Legal Authority
IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
VI. Changes to the Proposed Rule in This Final Rule
VII. Regulatory Analyses

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``Read Comments'' box in the upper right hand side of the
screen. Then, in the ``Keyword'' box, insert ``FMCSA-2011-0073'' and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions''
column. Finally, in the ``Title'' column, click on the document you
would like to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Privacy Act

    All comments received are posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Anyone is able to search the electronic form for
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

II. Abbreviations

CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
DEA Drug Enforcement Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FR Federal Register
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
OTETA Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Background

A. History

    The Federal laws governing drugs of abuse are set forth in the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, often
referred to as the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 801-971), as amended.
Controlled substances are drugs and other substances that have a
potential for abuse and psychological and physical dependence. The Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the primary agency responsible for
enforcing the Federal controlled substance laws. The DEA regulations,
which implement these laws, are found in 21 CFR parts 1300 to 1321. As
part of these regulations, DEA publishes an updated list of controlled
substances in 21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15. The controlled substances
are divided into five schedules. The controlled substances listed in
the schedule that are relevant to this rulemaking, Schedule I
controlled substances, have a high potential for abuse and have no
currently accepted medical use in the United States (DEA Interim Final
Rule on Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances, 75 FR
16236, March 31, 2010).
    The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (OTETA)
mandated that DOT establish a

controlled substances (drug) and alcohol testing program applicable to
regulated entities and individuals performing safety sensitive
functions. Entitled ``Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and
Alcohol Testing Programs,'' 49 CFR part 40 contains the DOT regulations
that detail how testing must be administered and prescribes procedures
to protect the integrity of the process. FMCSA's related drug and
alcohol testing regulations are in 49 CFR part 382, ``Controlled
Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing.''
    Section 382.213 prohibits CMV drivers from using any controlled
substances when on duty or reporting for duty except when prescribed by
a licensed medical practitioner who has advised the driver that the
prescribed substance will not adversely affect the driver's ability to
operate a CMV. Section 382.213 has remained largely unchanged since its
adoption in 1994, outside of a technical amendment changing the term
``physician'' to ``licensed medical practitioner'' for the purpose of
the prescription exception (61 FR 9556, March 8, 1996).
    In addition to those in part 382, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) include several other regulations governing
drivers' use of drugs. Section 391.41(b)(12) was first promulgated in
1970, and stated that persons who ``use an amphetamine, narcotic, or
any habit-forming drug, are not medically qualified to operate a
commercial motor vehicle'' (35 FR 6463, April 22, 1970). The regulation
was revised several times, most notably in 1984, when the DEA's
Schedule I drugs were added to the list of drugs prohibited by Sec.
391.41(b)(12) (49 FR 44215, November 5, 1984). Section 391.43(f)
incorporates the substance of Sec.  391.41(b)(12) in the instructions
to the medical examiner.
    Sections 382.213 and 391.41(b)(12) were designed to complement
Sec.  392.4, which prohibits the use of drugs by CMV drivers. Section
392.4 contains an exception for use of non-Schedule I drugs
``administered to a driver by or under the instructions of a licensed
medical practitioner, as defined in Sec.  382.107 of this subchapter,
who has advised the driver that the substance will not affect the
driver's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle'' (49 CFR 392.4).
    On July 8, 2011 (76 FR 40306), FMCSA proposed a rule to resolve a
perceived inconsistency among: Sec. Sec.  382.213, 391.41(b)(12),
391.43(f), and 392.4 of the FMCSRs; DOT-wide drug regulations in part
40; and DEA regulations. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
proposed to eliminate these perceived inconsistencies by making three
changes to FMCSA's regulations. The first was to amend the minimum
physical qualifications for CMV drivers to clarify that the use of
Schedule I drugs is prohibited under all circumstances. The second was
to require that drivers who refuse to submit to pre-employment and
return-to-duty tests be subject to the same referral, evaluation, and
treatment steps that are required after refusing other types of tests.
The third was to replace the term ``actual knowledge'' with the word
``knowledge'' in the context of regulations addressing employers'
knowledge of positive test results. The comment period ended on
September 6, 2011, and the Agency received two comments.

B. Legal Authority

    FMCSA has general authority to promulgate safety standards,
including those governing drivers' use of drugs while operating a CMV.
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98
Stat. 2832, October 30, 1984) (the 1984 Act) gives the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) authority to regulate drivers, motor
carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to ensure
that--(1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely;
(2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do not impair
their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical
condition of CMV operators is adequate to enable them to operate the
vehicles safely; and (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a
deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators (49
U.S.C. 31136(a)). Section 211 of the 1984 Act also grants the Secretary
broad power in carrying out motor carrier safety statutes and
regulations to ``prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements''
and to ``perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate'' (49
U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and (10)).
    The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR
1.73(g) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C.
chapter 311, subchapters I and III, relating to CMV programs and safety
regulation. This rule implements, in part, the Administrator's
delegated authority under Section 206(a)(3) of the 1984 Act to ensure
that the physical condition of CMV operators is adequate to enable them
to operate vehicles safely by clarifying that drivers may not use
Schedule I drugs and be qualified to drive CMVs under any
circumstances. The rule also exercises the broad recordkeeping and
implementation authority under Section 211. The other subsections of
Section 206(a) do not apply because this final rule only addresses the
physical condition of CMV drivers.
    In addition, and as stated above, OTETA (Pub. L. 102-143, Title V,
105 Stat. 917, at 952, October 28, 1991, partially codified at 49
U.S.C. 31306), mandated the alcohol and controlled substances (drug)
testing program for DOT. OTETA required the Secretary to promulgate
regulations for alcohol and controlled substances testing for persons
in safety-sensitive positions in four modes of transportation--motor
carrier, airline, railroad, and mass transit. Those regulations,
including subsequent amendments, are codified at 49 CFR part 40,
``Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs.'' Part 40 prescribes drug and alcohol testing requirements
for all DOT-regulated parties, including employers of drivers with
commercial driver's licenses subject to FMCSA testing requirements.
FMCSA's related drug and alcohol testing regulations are in 49 CFR part
382, ``Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing.''

IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule

    FMCSA received two comments in response to the NPRM (76 FR 40306,
July 8, 2011). The commenters included a member of the public and the
American Trucking Associations (ATA). Both commenters expressed support
for the rulemaking. The individual commenter stated the final rule
``can help with the safety on the road and the public.'' Specifically,
ATA ``commended FMCSA for its continued efforts to clarify and improve
the drug and alcohol testing regulations.''

Pre-employment Tests

    ATA commented that it believed that the proposed changes to Sec.
382.211 (pre-employment tests) would likely be ineffective because any
driver that fails a pre-employment test would probably seek a position
elsewhere and not report the failed test to future employers. ATA
stated that this is a loophole that cannot be closed until FMCSA
implements a national clearinghouse for drug/alcohol test results.
    FMCSA Response. Implementation of a national clearinghouse is
outside the scope of the rule FMCSA proposed. FMCSA is considering,
however, addressing this issue as a part of a future rulemaking.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

Sections 382.201 and 382.215

    This rule amends Sec. Sec.  382.201 and 382.215 to correct improper
use of the term ``actual knowledge.'' An employer has ``actual
knowledge'' that an employee has used drugs or alcohol in violation of
FMCSA rules when he or she directly observes or otherwise learns that a
driver is using controlled substances or consuming alcohol while on
duty (49 CFR 382.107). Actual knowledge, as defined at Sec.  382.107,
is distinct from an employer knowing that his or her employee-driver
tested positive or refused a DOT drug or alcohol test. Because
Sec. Sec.  382.201 and 382.215 set forth prohibitions related to an
employer's knowledge related to testing, not observation, the use of
the term ``actual knowledge'' is not appropriate. FMCSA replaces the
term ``actual knowledge'' with ``knowledge'' in these sections,
clarifying that these prohibitions refer to the knowledge of test
results, not employer observation of prohibited conduct.

Section 382.211

    Prior to this final rule, Sec.  382.211 only prohibited drivers
from refusing to submit to a post-accident, random, reasonable
suspicion, or follow-up drug or alcohol test. This rule amends this
section to include refusals for pre-employment testing and return-to-
duty testing as additional prohibitions. This amendment makes the
regulation consistent with DOT-wide drug and alcohol testing rules at
49 CFR 40.191(a)(3).

Section 382.213

    Prior to this final rule, the text of Sec.  382.213 prohibited CMV
drivers from using any drugs when on duty or reporting for duty except
when prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner who has advised the
driver that the prescribed substance will not adversely affect the
driver's ability to operate a CMV. In this final rule, the Agency
amends the language regarding the drugs that CMV drivers are prohibited
from using in order to differentiate between Schedule I drugs and non-
Schedule I drugs. The changes make it clear that Schedule I drugs may
not be used by a CMV driver under any circumstances. FMCSA's
regulations continue to permit the use of non-Schedule I drugs under
limited circumstances, when prescribed by a licensed medical
practitioner.

Sections 391.41 and 391.43

    Prior to this final rule, Sec.  391.41(b)(12)(i) stated that a
driver may not use: Controlled substances on the DEA Schedule I,
amphetamines, narcotics, or other habit-forming drugs. Section
391.41(b)(12)(ii) contained an exception for a substance or drug
prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner who is familiar with the
driver's history and work duties and has advised the driver that the
prescribed substance or drug will not adversely affect his or her
ability to safely operate a CMV. Previously, Sec.  391.41(b)(12) did
not differentiate between Schedule I and non-Schedule I drugs for the
purpose of the prescription exception. However, FMCSA has never
considered this exception to permit use of Schedule I drugs by CMV
drivers under any circumstance because Federal law prohibits Schedule I
drugs from being prescribed in the United States.
    The Agency amends Sec.  391.41 to remove any ambiguity and to
clarify that the exception that allows a CMV driver to use a substance
or drug if it is prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner who is
familiar with the driver's medical history and has advised the driver
that the prescribed substance or drug will not adversely affect the
driver's ability to safely operate a CMV, only applies to non-Schedule
I prescribed substances, amphetamines, narcotics, or other habit-
forming drugs.
    Section 391.43(f) incorporates the substance of Sec.  391.41(b)(12)
into pages 4 and 8 of the Instructions to the Medical Examiner. FMCSA
makes no other changes to this document.

VI. Changes to the Proposed Rule in this Final Rule

    This final rule makes the following minor changes to the NPRM to
improve the clarity and intent of the rule.
    The final rule removes the term ``controlled substance'' from
Sec. Sec.  382.213 and 391.41(b)(12) and replaces it with ``drug or
substance.'' This new language conforms to terminology the DEA uses in
its regulations at 21 CFR part 1308. The final rule also changes the
language in Sec. Sec.  382.213(b) and 391.41(b)(12)(ii) that references
non-Schedule I drugs or substances and replaces it with the phrase
``that is identified in the other Schedules in 21 CFR part 1308.'' The
Agency did not intend to expand the scope of these sections to non-
scheduled drugs. This change makes the Agency's intent clear by
specifically stating that they only apply to the use of drugs or
substances that appear on one of the DEA's controlled substances
schedules.
    The final rule changes the following highlighted language proposed
in Sec.  391.41(b)(12)(ii): ``Does not use any non-Schedule I
controlled substance except when the use is pursuant to the
instructions of a licensed medical practitioner * * * '' After further
consideration, the Agency concluded that this change of language is
inconsistent with language used elsewhere in the Agency's regulations
and would be confusing to public. As a result, the final rule does not
adopt this change. The final rule removes the language ``pursuant to
the instructions of'' and replaces it with the original language in
this section, ``prescribed by.''
    The final rule also changes Sec.  391.43(f) to reflect these
changes on pages 4 and 8 of the Instructions to the Medical Examiner.
    Finally, the final rule removes the following language from page 8
of the Instructions to the Medical Examiner: ``If a driver uses a
Schedule I drug or other substance, an amphetamine, a narcotic, or any
other habit-forming drug, it may be cause for the driver to be found
medically unqualified,'' and replaces it with: ``If a driver uses an
amphetamine, a narcotic or any other habit-forming drug, it may be
cause for the driver to be found medically unqualified. If a driver
uses a Schedule I drug or substance, it will be cause for the driver to
be found medically unqualified.'' This change harmonizes the
Instructions with the other changes made in this final rule.
Specifically, it makes clear that a driver using a Schedule I drug or
substance is not medically qualified to drive under any circumstances.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action does not meet the criteria for a ``significant
regulatory action,'' either as specified in Executive Order 12866 as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 18, 2011) or
within the meaning of the DOT regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR
1103, February 26, 1979). The estimated economic costs of the rule do
not exceed the $100 million annual threshold nor does the Agency expect
the rule to have substantial Congressional or public interest.
Therefore, this rule has not been formally reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. No expenditures are required of the affected
population because the rule only clarifies existing rules, amends
inconsistencies in FMCSA's current regulations, and harmonizes them
with DOT-wide regulations and DEA regulations.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires
Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on
small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant
economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses
and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their fields, as well as governmental
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, DOT
policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small
entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse
effects on these businesses.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121,
Title II, 110 Stat. 857), the rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the rule only clarifies existing rules, amends inconsistencies
in FMCSA's current regulations, and harmonizes them with the DOT-wide
regulations and DEA regulations. Accordingly, I certify that a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not necessary.

Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 858),
FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the
rulemaking initiative. If the rule affects your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the
FMCSA point of contact, Angela Ward, listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule. FMCSA does not intend to take
action against small entities that have questions about this rule or
any policy or action of the Agency.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-(888)
734-3247).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $143.1 million (which is the
value of $100 million in 2010 after adjusting for inflation) or more in
any 1 year. This rule will not result in such expenditure; FMCSA
expects the effects of this rule to be minimal because it only
clarifies existing rules, amends inconsistencies in FMCSA's current
regulations, and harmonizes them with the DOT-wide regulations and DEA
regulations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Privacy Impact Assessment

    FMCSA conducted a Privacy Threshold Analysis for the rulemaking and
determined that this rule is not a privacy-sensitive rulemaking because
it will not require any collection, maintenance, or dissemination of
Personally Identifiable Information from or about members of the
public.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and either preempts State law or imposes a substantial
direct cost of compliance on States or localities. Although States and
localities are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 31306(g) from adopting or
enforcing a law or regulation inconsistent with OTETA or its
implementing regulations, parts 382 and 391 and this rule do not impose
substantial direct costs of compliance on States or localities. FMCSA
has therefore determined that this rule does not have implications for
federalism.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is
not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The Agency determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.

National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    FMCSA analyzed this rule for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1, published
February 24, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this action does not have any
effect on the quality of the environment. Therefore, this rule is
categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an
environmental

assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1,
paragraph 6(r) of Appendix 2. The Categorical Exclusion under paragraph
6(y)(6) relates to ``regulations implementing employer controlled
substances and alcohol use and testing procedures * * * '' which is the
focus of this rulemaking. A Categorical Exclusion determination is
available for inspection or copying in the regulations.gov Web site
listed under ADDRESSES.
    In addition to the NEPA requirements to examine impacts on air
quality, the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
also requires FMCSA to analyze the potential impact of its actions on
air quality and to ensure that FMCSA actions conform to State and local
air quality implementation plans. The additional contributions to air
emissions are expected to fall within the CAA de minimis standards and
are not expected to be subject to the Environmental Protection Agency's
General Conformity Rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 382

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Drug testing, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Penalties, Safety,
Transportation.

49 CFR Part 391

    Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Highway safety, Motor
carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety,
Transportation.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, FMCSA amends 49 CFR parts
382 and 391 as follows:

PART 382--CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND ALCOHOL USE AND TESTING

0
1. The authority citation for part 382 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31301 et seq., 31502; and 49
CFR 1.73.

Sec.  382.201  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  382.201 by removing the word ``actual'' between the
words ``having'' and ``knowledge.''

0
3. Revise Sec.  382.211 to read as follows:

Sec.  382.211  Refusal to submit to a required alcohol or controlled
substances test.

    No driver shall refuse to submit to a pre-employment controlled
substance test required under Sec.  382.301, a post-accident alcohol or
controlled substance test required under Sec.  382.303, a random
alcohol or controlled substances test required under Sec.  382.305, a
reasonable suspicion alcohol or controlled substance test required
under Sec.  382.307, a return-to-duty alcohol or controlled substances
test required under Sec.  382.309, or a follow-up alcohol or controlled
substance test required under Sec.  382.311. No employer shall permit a
driver who refuses to submit to such tests to perform or continue to
perform safety-sensitive functions.

0
4. Revise Sec.  382.213 to read as follows:

Sec.  382.213  Controlled substance use.

    (a) No driver shall report for duty or remain on duty requiring the
performance of safety sensitive functions when the driver uses any drug
or substance identified in 21 CFR 1308.11 Schedule I.
    (b) No driver shall report for duty or remain on duty requiring the
performance of safety-sensitive functions when the driver uses any non-
Schedule I drug or substance that is identified in the other Schedules
in 21 CFR part 1308 except when the use is pursuant to the instructions
of a licensed medical practitioner, as defined in Sec.  382.107, who is
familiar with the driver's medical history and has advised the driver
that the substance will not adversely affect the driver's ability to
safely operate a commercial motor vehicle.
    (c) No employer having actual knowledge that a driver has used a
controlled substance shall permit the driver to perform or continue to
perform a safety-sensitive function.
    (d) An employer may require a driver to inform the employer of any
therapeutic drug use.

Sec.  382.215  [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  382.215 by removing the word ``actual'' between the
words ``having'' and ``knowledge.''

PART 391--QUALIFICATIONS OF DRIVERS AND LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLE
(LCV) DRIVER INSTRUCTORS

0
6. The authority citation for part 391 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 504, 508, 31133, 31136, and 31502;
sec. 4007(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 2152; sec. 114 of Pub. L.
103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113
Stat. 1767; and 49 CFR 1.73.

0
7. Revise Sec.  391.41 paragraph (b)(12) to read as follows:

Sec.  391.41  Physical qualifications for drivers.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (12)(i) Does not use any drug or substance identified in 21 CFR
1308.11 Schedule I, an amphetamine, a narcotic, or other habit-forming
drug.
    (ii) Does not use any non-Schedule I drug or substance that is
identified in the other Schedules in 21 part 1308 except when the use
is prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner, as defined in Sec.
382.107, who is familiar with the driver's medical history and has
advised the driver that the substance will not adversely affect the
driver's ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle.
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  391.43(f) by removing the Medical Examination Report for
Commercial Driver Fitness Determination, form 649-F (6045), and adding
in its place the following form, to read as follows:

Sec.  391.43  Medical examination; certificate of physical examination.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA12.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA12.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA12.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA12.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA12.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA12.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA12.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA12.009

* * * * *

    Issued on: January 18, 2012.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-1905 Filed 1-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-C


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 229 (Monday, November 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74826-74828]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30244]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76508; File No. SR-ISE-2015-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating Alternative
Primary Market Makers

November 23, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 16, 2015, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to permit any
Competitive Market Maker (``CMM'') that is appointed to act as an
Alternative Primary Market Maker (``Alternative PMM'') to voluntarily
act as a Back-Up Primary Market Maker (``Back-Up PMM''). The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to permit any CMM that is approved to act as
an Alternative PMM to voluntarily act as a Back-Up PMM in options
series in which it is quoting when the appointed PMM fails to have a
quote in the System. In doing so, the Exchange would further enhance
its markets by having additional Back-Up PMMs to take over a PMM's
responsibilities when the appointed PMM faces operational difficulties
or ceases operations. The Exchange also proposes to amend the process
by which a Back-Up PMM is chosen to replace a PMM that fails to have a
quote in the System, when more than one CMM is quoting in the series.
Background
    Currently, CMMs that are also PMMs on the Exchange may voluntarily
act as Back-Up PMMs when the appointed PMM has technical difficulties
that interrupt its participation in the market.\3\ These CMMs/PMMs are
permitted to be Back-Up PMMs because they already have systems built to
undertake the responsibilities of a PMM on the Exchange.\4\ Back-Up
PMMs reduce volatility that occurs during, and the duration of, non-
firm or ``fast market'' states disseminated by the ISE and facilitate
uninterrupted trading even when a PMM experiences difficulties that
cause it to remove its quotes from the market. In these situations, the
Back-Up PMM assumes most of the responsibilities and privileges of a
PMM under the Rules with respect to any series in which the appointed
PMM fails to have a quote in the System.\5\ The system automatically
switches back to the appointed PMM when it re-establishes its quotes in
the series, but the Back-Up PMM continues to be responsible for any
outstanding unexecuted orders it is handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-53419 (March 6,
2006), 71 FR 12758 (March 13, 2006) (SR-ISE-2005-50).
    \4\ If there is more than one eligible member quoting in the
series, the System will automatically switch to the member with the
largest offer in the series.
    \5\ A CMM does not become subject to the requirement in Rule
804(e)(1) to enter continuous quotations in all of the series of all
of the options classes to which it is appointed, as opposed to only
60% of the options classes under Rule 804(e)(2), by acting as a
Back-Up PMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's Rules also allow the Exchange to appoint a CMM as an
Alternative PMM when a PMM does not wish to trade in an option
class.\6\ These CMMs are permitted to be Alternative PMMs because they
have appropriate systems and procedures in place to undertake the
responsibilities of a PMM. Alternative PMMs enable the Exchange to list
and retain options classes that PMMs do not wish to trade.\7\
Specifically, when no PMMs want the allocation of an option class, the
Alternative PMMs are offered the opportunity to serve as PMM in the
option class in accordance with the Exchange's regular allocation
procedures. In these situations, the Alternative PMM has all of the
responsibilities and privileges of a PMM with respect to all appointed
options classes.\8\ Additionally, if an Alternative PMM ceases trading
in an option class, that option class would be reallocated by the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-59250 (January 14,
2009), 74 FR 4062 (January 22, 2009) (SR-ISE-2008-90).
    \7\ Under Rule 802, allocations are voluntary, and at times ISE
was unable to list new products because none of the PMMs were
interested in trading the class. As a result, the Exchange was
unable to list new products because existing PMMs were not
interested in trading the option class. At other times, ISE delisted
certain products due to lack of PMM interest. ISE represents that
this occurs most frequently with respect to options on stocks that
have pending corporate actions and options products that are not
listed at any other options exchange. ISE believes that despite the
lack of PMM interest, these products may be of interest to other
Members of the Exchange.
    \8\ For example, Alternative PMMs would enjoy privileges that
include, among other things, participation rights and small order
execution preference while accepting responsibilities that include,
among other things, the obligation to provide continuous quotations
in the option class to which the Alternative PMM is appointed, and
the obligation to conduct the opening rotation on a daily basis for
as long as the Alternative PMM is appointed to that option class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange now proposes to permit an Alternative PMM to
voluntarily act as a Back-Up PMM in options series in which it is
quoting \9\ and assume most of the responsibilities and privileges of a
PMM under the Rules with respect to any option series in which the
appointed PMM fails to have a quote in the System.\10\ This may occur
when, for example, the appointed PMM has technical difficulties that
interrupt its participation in the market or a PMM exits the options
market making business. Under the proposal, an Alternative PMM is
eligible to act as a Back-Up PMM because it already has in place
written procedures and systems built to assume the responsibilities of
a

PMM on the Exchange. The Exchange also proposes to further amend the
process by which a Back-Up PMM is chosen to replace a PMM that fails to
have a quote in the System, when more than one Back-Up PMM is quoting
in the series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that under its current rules it may only
appoint PMMs (i.e. CMMs that are also PMMs in other option classes)
as Back-up PMMs.
    \10\ See Supplementary Material .03(a) to ISE Rule 803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In situations where a PMM fails to have a quote in the System, the
System will choose a Back-Up PMM, from the available CMMs, to replace
the PMM. The System will choose the CMM with the lowest offer price in
the series at that time. If there are two or more CMMs at the same
offer price, the CMM with the highest bid price will be chosen. If
there are two or more CMMs at the same bid and offer price, the CMM
with the largest offer quantity will be chosen. If there are two or
more CMMs with the same offer quantity, the CMM with the largest bid
quantity will be chosen. If there remains two or more CMMs with the
same bid and offer quantity and prices, the one with the highest time
priority on the offer will be chosen as the Back-Up PMM.\11\
Additionally, when possible, the System will automatically switch back
to the appointed PMM when it re-establishes its quotes in the series,
but the Back-Up PMM will continue to be responsible for any outstanding
unexecuted orders it is handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Supplementary Material .03(b) to ISE Rule 803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change enhances ISE's market because it ensures
ISE has an adequate number of willing Members to act as Back-Up PMMs
for PMMs that are not participating in the market. Ultimately, having
more Back-Up PMMs will further: (1) Reduce the volatility that occurs
during, and the duration of, non-firm or ``fast market'' \12\ states
disseminated by ISE and (2) allow for virtually seamless trading even
when multiple PMMs experience difficulties that cause PMMs to remove
their quotes from the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Fast markets occur when there is rapid trading in a
security that causes a delay in the electronic updating of its last
sale. Trades can occur so rapidly that market orders may be executed
at a very different price from the price at the time the order was
placed. This leads to investors being disadvantaged because 1)
quotes can be inaccurate when PMMs are unable to keep up with the
pace of trading or 2) a broker may not be able to fill orders when
investors want or expect them to because the PMM is not quoting the
other side of the market resulting in the purchase or sale of an
investor's securities at undesirable price levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) \14\ in particular, in that it is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by
enhancing the Exchange's market by reducing volatility that occurs
during and the duration of non-firm or ``fast market'' states
disseminated by the ISE and allowing for virtually uninterrupted
trading even when multiple PMMs experience difficulties that cause PMMs
to remove their quotes from the market. Uninterrupted trading is
possible because 1) Back-Up PMMs have appropriate systems and
procedures in place to undertake the responsibilities of a PMM when
necessary and 2) having an adequate amount of Back-Up PMMs means a
Back-Up PMM will be available to take over for a PMM, and post firm and
accurate quotes when a situation causes a PMM to fail to have a quote
in the System. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it enhances the Exchange's ability to disseminate firm markets.
Additionally, by amending and explaining the detailed steps for
choosing Back-Up PMMs, members will have additional clarity on the
process by which a Back-Up PMM is chosen in certain situations.

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

    This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Exchange Act because ISE is enhancing its market by allowing
additional Members, which have systems built to assume the
responsibilities of a PMM on the Exchange to be Backup-PMMs when
appointed PMMs face operational difficulties or cease market making
operations.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\ The Exchange provided the Commission with
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission, as
required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2015-42 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2015-42. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use

only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2015-42 and should be
submitted by December 21, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30244 Filed 11-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Amy Hambrick, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/FIG

FROM:	Veronica Hanzel, EC/R, Inc.

DATE:	May 10, 2016

SUBJECT:	Summary of the November 10, 2015, Meeting with the Gas Processors Association (GPA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I.	INTRODUCTION

The Gas Processors Association (GPA) requested this meeting with EPA to present an overview of their comments on the November 10, 2015 proposed Oil and Natural Gas Sector NSPS (80 FR 56593), draft CTG (80 FR 56577), proposed Source Determination Rule (80 FR 56579), and proposed FIP for EPA's Indian Country Minor NSR program. This summary addresses the first discussion on the first three actions.

II.	ATTENDEES

The following is a list of participants in the meeting.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jodi Howard
Amy Hambrick
Bruce Moore
Greg Nizich
Charlene Spells
Lisa Thompson
Matthew Witosky
Chris Stoneman
Jameel Alsalam (by phone)

GPA and Member Organizations
David Oldaker, Enterprise Products
Jaron Hill, Williams
Matt Hite, GPA
Claudio Galli, Enbridge
Melanie Roberts, Targa Resources
Adrienne Sandoval, Tesoro Logistics
Jeff Stovolle, Crestwood

EC/R Incorporated
Veronica Hanzel (by phone)
Joanne O'Loughlin (by phone)

III.	SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Bruce Moore opened the meeting and explained to the attendees that since the EPA is in the post-proposal phase of the NSPS and CTG, EPA personnel would listen to their comments but cannot respond to any of the issues raised. However, the EPA welcomed the comments. The attendees offered the following comments.

Tribal New Source Rule
 GPA noted that registration under NSR will disadvantage tribes; specifically that there is no synthetic minor only true minor facilities would likely be affected.
 Noted that all other states have minor source permits and presented a table of their research summarizing nearby states and the oil and natural gas permitting options (see attached, "Comparison of Commonly Used permitting Options for Midstream Sites")
 These permits are typically used for compressor stations and natural gas processing plants and provided federally enforceable limits. GPA also noted concerns on application timeline that could cause different choices to be made.
 Greg Nizich requested any ideas on ways to incorporate synthetic minor into non-attainment areas.
 GPA asked if there are other FIPs or discussion n place. For Tribal and Federal lands the oil and natural gas is the largest and asked if there are others intending to go after methane emissions.
 GPA noted that it is hard to tell if true minor sources are excluded from FIP and typically true minors are covered under general permits.
 A comment was made that it is more common to have many small processing plants versus large plants and that EPA should evaluate pipeline and small plant cost
 Comment was made that the 30 day registration timing is a problem due to the many changes made from planning and specification to actual build and wanted to know if using the timing in the FIP until a non-attainment FIP was available as the interim FIP timeline was a big issue.
 Suggested non-attainment FIP supersede and that EPA avoid side-by-side permit review at the regional level due to timing (not enough staff), and streamline the process as much as possible.
 Wanted to have the FIP handle minor modification at major sources.

NSPS Proposal
 Next Generation Compliance approach
 GPA noted that these approaches are not applicable to smaller, more remote sites.
 EPA requested comment on issues such as 3[rd] party verification. GPA notes it is very different for unmanned locations.
 Electronic reporting will required systems to be updated and robust enough to handle the data input. Systems this size operated by EPA have experienced significant problems before in implementation.

 Pneumatic pump
 GPA noted concerns with control cost only being routing to a control device and that there are engineering problems with routing to a control device.
 GPA asked what the "out" is for technical feasibility issues and stated that there could be many unintended consequences.
 On the subject of low usage pumps (i.e., lubrications pumps, slop pumps). Is there a way to address these and differentiate them from other pumps? It would be ridiculous to keep rate meter on these low use pumps, have operation time logged. GPA stated it would be helpful if EPA would provide an emission threshold.
 GPA asked if control device requirements could match up with requirements for storage vessels or default to the requirements already in effect (i.e., state NSR permit).
 Timing could be an issue in being able to route pumps to a control device.
 GPA stated that control device requirements could be retroactive to OOOO sources and EPA should look at that.
 GPA noted that the rule has some ambiguity with respect to pumps which leave interpretation open to inspections and could cause unintended costs due to different interpretations.

 Fugitives Monitoring
 Expressed concern with third party verification. Noted it is very time consuming and expensive.
 The fugitives' definition of modification is problematic. How id modification tied to emissions at the site? For compressor stations, changing capacity does not necessarily increase emissions, in fact, the emissions may be lower. GPA stated that EPA needed to make it clear that something that had changed causing an increase in emissions not based on activity.
 GPA also question timelines as potentially undoable.
 GPA reiterated comments on use of photographs, logs, compliance costs.
 GPA also noted that their comments identified several questions on intent of the requirements, specifically with respect to off-ramps for leaks under control, definition of well site and compressor station, ownership of production equipment.

 CTG Questions
 GPA noted that the requirements seem to copy those of OOOOa for methane and VOC, however is should only be for VOC.
 GPA questioned whether there should be some minimum percent VOC for the requirements to apply.
 GPA questions why there was no 4 tpy cut-off for storage vessels citing that the storage vessel requirements were significantly different than other requirements making it difficult to compare.
 GPA asked why the compliance requirements were stricter than the NPS.

Sign in Sheet


                          Incorporation by Reference
                       Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0499
                                January 7, 2016

The contents of the following dockets are hereby incorporated by reference into and are considered to be included in, contained in, and to have been placed in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0499 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides):

      EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0063 (Interim Statement and Guidance on Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States in Compliance with FIFRA), legacy EDOCKET ID No. OW-2003-0063.

      EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides)

      EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0852 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States)

      EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719-0079 (Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States)

Accessing dockets:

All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at a docket facility. The Office of Water (OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The OW Docket Center telephone number is (202) 566 - 2426, and the Docket address is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding


[Federal Register: December 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 76686-76688]
[DOCID:fr17de08-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59073; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-122]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated Regarding Fees for the CBOE Stock Exchange

December 10, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 28, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or
``Exchange'') proposes to modify its fees applicable to the CBOE Stock
Exchange (``CBSX''). The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The CBSX Fees Schedule lists the fees applicable to trading on
CBSX. Those fees include transaction fees, which are based on whether
the executing member is ``taking'' liquidity or ``making'' liquidity in
connection with the transaction. The CBSX Fees Schedule also sets forth
market quality bid/ask standards called Liquidity Provider Guidelines
(``LPGs''). If the LPGs are met 90% of the time each day, then all CBSX
Designated Primary Market-Makers \3\ (``CBSX DPMs'') and CBSX Remote
Market-Makers \4\ (``CBSX RMMs'') receive enhanced maker rebates as set
forth in the CBSX Fees Schedule. Specifically, CBSX RMMs that meet LPGs
receive a maker rebate of $0.0027 per share, while CBSX DPMs that meet
LPGs receive a maker rebate of $0.0029 per share. This filing proposes
to make four changes to the CBSX fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CBOE Rule 50.3(4).
    \4\ See CBOE Rule 50.3(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the filing establishes a uniform qualifying Market-Maker
maker rebate of $0.0027 per share that would apply to all CBSX Market-
Makers \5\ when the LPGs are met. Second, the filing proposes to lower
the general maker rebate from $0.0026 to $0.0025 per share. Third, the
filing proposes to adopt fees for stock orders that are executed
pursuant to CBOE's Automated Improvement Mechanism and Solicitation
Auction Mechanism (Rules 6.74A.07 and 6.74B.01). These CBOE rules
govern crossing orders pursuant to electronic auctions. Recently, CBOE
adopted changes to those rules to allow those mechanisms to process
complex orders (including stock-option orders). This filing proposes to
establish a $0.0005 per share fee for these stock executions subject to
a $1 minimum and $25 maximum charge. Fourth, the filing proposes to
establish a fee for shares routed to other markets in connection with
the execution of a CBSX Cross and Sweep order. The fee would be $0.0040
per share. Cross and Sweep orders (See CBSX Rule 51.8(r)) allow users
to cross orders on CBSX at prices outside of the NBBO while the CBSX
system contemporaneously sweeps all protected quotes on other markets
and all better priced interest on CBSX in connection with the cross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CBOE Rule 50.3(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes will take effect on December 1, 2008.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\6\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of section 6(b)(4) \7\ of the Act in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE members and other persons
using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2)
of Rule 19b-4 \9\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such
rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-122 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-122. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2008-122 and should be submitted on or before January 7, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-29903 Filed 12-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P