[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 235 (Monday, December 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 78845]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26827]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL19-58-004]

PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on November 24, 2020, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
submitted a filing in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) November 12, 2020 Order on Compliance,\1\ in
the above captioned proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 173 FERC 61,134 (2020)
(November 12 Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, The Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 15, 2020.

    Dated: December 1, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26827 Filed 12-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 18007-18009]
[DOCID:fr20ap09-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59754; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt IM-
2830-1 (``Breakpoint'' Sales) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

April 13, 2009.
    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 March 26, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Interpretive Material 2830-1
(``IM-2830-1'') (``Breakpoint'' Sales) as a FINRA rule in the
consolidated FINRA rulebook with minor changes. The proposed rule
change would renumber NASD IM-2830-1 as FINRA Rule 2342 in the
consolidated FINRA rulebook.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\3\ FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD
IM-2830-1 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook with minor changes
discussed below. The proposed rule change would renumber NASD IM-2830-1
as FINRA Rule 2342. NASD IM-2830-1 prohibits sales of mutual fund
shares in amounts below a ``breakpoint'' if such sales are made ``so as
to share in the higher sales charges.'' In the context of mutual fund
sales, a ``breakpoint'' is that point at which the sales charge is
reduced for quantity purchases of fund shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The application of the standard in NASD IM-2830-1 depends on the
facts and circumstances of particular transactions to determine whether
a member executed a transaction for the purpose of earning a higher
sales charge. In 1998, NASD IM-2830-1 was amended to address the use of
modern portfolio investment strategies that utilize many different
mutual funds with varying investment objectives.\4\ The amendments
specify more precisely those facts and circumstances that FINRA will
consider when examining whether trades that miss breakpoints, but are
made pursuant to bona fide asset allocation programs, may have violated
NASD IM-2830-1. In making such determinations, the rule provides that
FINRA will consider, among other things, whether a member has retained
records that demonstrate that the trade was executed in accordance with
a bona fide asset allocation program that the member offers to its
customers which is designed to meet their diversification needs and
investment goals; and under which the member discloses to its customers
that they may not qualify for breakpoint reductions that are otherwise
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40659 (Nov. 10,
1998), 63 FR 64136 (Nov. 18, 1998) (Order Approving Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Mutual Fund Breakpoint Sales).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Breakpoint issues have been of concern to the regulatory community.
On December 23, 2002, FINRA issued Special Notice to Members 02-85,
which reminded firms of their obligation to apply correctly breakpoint
discounts to front-end sales load mutual fund transactions.\5\ In 2003,
the staffs of FINRA, the SEC, and the NYSE conducted examinations of
broker-dealers to assess their ability to deliver breakpoint discounts
and memorialized the findings of those examinations in a joint
report.\6\ Concurrently, FINRA staff and industry members formed a
joint task force to consider issues regarding breakpoints. The joint
task force issued a report in July 2003 containing recommendations for
the industry to facilitate the accurate delivery of breakpoint
discounts.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NASD Special Notice to Members 02-85, NASD Requires
Immediate Member Firm Action Regarding Mutual Fund Purchases and
Breakpoint Schedules (December 2002).
    \6\ See Joint SEC/NASD/NYSE Report of Examinations of Broker/
Dealers Regarding Discounts on Front-End Sales Charges on Mutual
Funds (March 2003), available at http://www.finra.org/Industry/
Issues/Breakpoints/P006438.
    \7\ See Report of the Joint NASD/Industry Task Force on
Breakpoints (July 2003), available at  http://www.finra.org/
Industry/Issues/Breakpoints/P006422.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposes to adopt NASD IM-2830-1 as FINRA Rule 2342 as it
believes this rule continues to be an important tool in regulating
members' sales of mutual fund shares to ensure that they are not sold
in dollar amounts just below breakpoints so as to share in higher sales
charges. FINRA proposes to eliminate references to ``just and equitable
principles of trade'' and make other minor changes to the text to
reflect that it would be a stand-alone rule, rather than Interpretive
Material, and to eliminate certain redundant text that is inconsistent
with a rules-based format.
    As noted above, FINRA will announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later
than 90 days following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change would
continue to provide FINRA with an important tool in regulating members'
sales of mutual fund shares, consistent with the goals of protecting
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-018 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-018. 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2009-018 and should be submitted
on or before May 11, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8877 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52467-52469]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0915]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones for Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project on the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel; Chesapeake Bay, VA

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

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones for
certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT), linking Southeastern Virginia to
the Eastern Shore, during an already ongoing construction project on
the CBBT. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from operating
within 500 feet of the construction area unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Virginia or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from September 26, 2022, through January
31, 2027.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0915 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Ashley Holm, Sector Virginia, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CBBT Cheasapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Virginia
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    In December, 2021, the COTP was notified by project management for
the Parallel Thimble Shoals Tunnel Project that construction work in
vicinity of the CBBT's southern two islands, South Thimble Island and
North Thimble Island, creates hazards to the maritime public and
recommended the establishment of safety zones. Hazards include the
operation of heavy machinery and loads suspended by cranes over the
waters surrounding the islands and attached structures. Specifically,
safety concerns were raised that involved kayakers and vessels fishing
in the vicinity of the construction site despite posted signs
indicating not to approach the site within 500 feet. The COTP has
determined that potential hazards associated with the construction
equipment used in this project creates a safety concern for those
transiting within 500 feet of the project site. This construction
project has been ongoing for 4 years, workers are present at all hours
and the work is projected to continue for the next 5 years. In
response, on April 8, 2022, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Safety Zones for Parallel Thimble
Shoal Tunnel Project on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel; Chesapeake
Bay, VA'' (87 FR 20796). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and
invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to the
bridge construction. During the comment period that ended May 23, 2022,
we received no comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Virginia
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge
tunnel construction project will be a safety concern for anyone within
a 500-feet in all direction from the edge of both South Thimble Island
and North Thimble Island. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety
of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone at all times
while construction equipment is present.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April
8, 2022. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes two temporary safety zones extending 500 feet
in all directions from the edge of both South Thimble Island and North
Thimble Island. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the
safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on its minimal impact
to the local economy, as any fishery needing to use these waters can be
accommodated by the two other man-made islands approximately 5 miles to
the north and the attached 15 miles of bridge trestle which are not
covered with construction equipment, and therefore will not be covered
by these safety zones.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the
establishment of safety zones to protect the public from hazards
created by ongoing construction work. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60a of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0915 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0915  Safety Zones; Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel,
Chesapeake Bay Entrance, VA.

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones:
    (1) Any waters located within 500 feet in all directions from the
edge of South Thimble Island. South Thimble Island is located
approximately 3.3 miles north of the shores of Virginia Beach on
Highway 13, also known as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT).
    (2) Any waters located within 500 feet in all directions from the
edge of North Thimble Island. North Thimble Island is located
approximately 4.5 miles north of Virginia Beach on Highway 13.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Virginia (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zones. The term also includes an employee or contractor of
Chesapeake Tunnel Joint Venture (CTJV) for the sole purpose of
designating and establishing safe transit corridors, to permit passage
into or through the safety zones listed in paragraph (a) of this
section, or to notify vessels and individuals that they have entered a
safety zone and are required to depart immediately.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, no vessel or person may enter or remain in any
safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the COTP, or designated representative. If a vessel or
person is notified by the COTP, or designated representative, that they
have entered one of these safety zones without permission, they are
required to immediately depart in a safe manner following the
directions given.
    (2) Mariners requesting to transit any of these safety zones must
first contact the CTJV designated representatives, CTJV Marine General
Superintendant by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, CTJV Safety Director at 702-
415-8600, or CTJV Construction Manager at<PHONE_NUMBER>. CTJV will be
monitoring VHF-FM channels 13 and 16 while work is ongoing. If
permission is granted, mariners must proceed at their own risk and
strictly observe any and all instructions provided by the COTP, or
designated representative, to the mariner regarding the conditions of
entry to and exit from any location within the fixed safety zones.
    (d) Enforcement. The Sector Virginia COTP may enforce the
regulations in this section and may be assisted by any Federal, state,
county, or municipal law enforcement agency.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced until January
31, 2027, unless cancelled sooner by the COTP.

    Dated: August 19, 2022.
Jennifer A. Stockwell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Virginia.
[FR Doc. 2022-18360 Filed 8-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 91894-91895]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30365]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 50 and 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0202; FRL-9956-97-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS82

Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications and State Implementation
Plan Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public hearing and extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that a
public hearing will be held for the proposed rule titled,
``Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications and State Implementation Plan
Requirements,'' which published in the Federal Register on November 17,
2016. The hearing will be held on Thursday, January 12, 2017, in
Washington, DC The EPA is also announcing extension of the comment
period for the proposed rule to February 13, 2017, to allow sufficient
time after the public hearing for commenters to submit comments.

DATES: Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held on January 12,
2017, in Washington, DC. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
additional information on the public hearing.
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Public Hearing. The January 12, 2017, public hearing will be
held at the EPA, William Jefferson Clinton East Building, Room 1117A,
1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Identification is
required. If your driver's license is issued by Kentucky, Maine,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina or
the state of Washington, you must present an additional form of
identification to enter (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional
information on this location).
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0202, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center
Reading Room, in the William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room
3334, located at 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 legal holidays. The phone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like to speak at the
public hearing, please contact Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Air Quality Planning Division (C504-01), Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than January 10, 2017. If you
have any questions relating to the public hearing, please contact Ms.
Long at the above number.
    If you have questions concerning the November 17, 2016, proposed
rule, please contact Mr. Robert Lingard, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. EPA, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Lynn Dail, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. EPA, at (919) 54l-2363 or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information on the Information Collection
Request (ICR), contact Mr. Butch Stackhouse, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. EPA, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal for which the EPA is holding
the public hearing was published in the Federal Register on November
17, 2016 (81 FR 81276), and is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution and also in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0202. The public
hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present
data, views, or arguments concerning the proposal. The EPA may ask
clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not
respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and
supporting information that are submitted during the comment period
will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and
supporting information presented at the public hearing. Written
comments must be postmarked by the last day of the comment period.
    The public hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET). The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all
individuals interested in providing oral testimony. A lunch break is
scheduled from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. Please note that this

hearing will be held at a U.S. government facility. Individuals
planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture
identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the
meeting room. The REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established
new requirements for entering federal facilities. These requirements
took effect July 21, 2014. If your driver's license is issued by
Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina or the state of Washington, you must present an
additional form of identification to enter the federal building where
the public hearing will be held. Acceptable alternative forms of
identification include: federal employee badges, passports, enhanced
driver's licenses and military identification cards. For additional
information for the status of your state regarding REAL ID, go to
http://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. In addition, you will
need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring
with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return
this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed
in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building, and
demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security
reasons.
    If you would like to present oral testimony at the hearing, please
notify Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Air Quality Planning
Division (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919)
541-0641, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no
later than 4:00 p.m. ET on January 10, 2017. Ms. Long will arrange a
general time slot for you to speak. The EPA will make every effort to
follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing.
    Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes for each commenter. The
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically (via email) or in hard copy form. The EPA will
not provide audiovisual equipment for presentations unless we receive
special requests in advance. Commenters should notify Ms. Long if they
will need specific equipment. Commenters should also notify Ms. Long if
they need specific translation services for non-English speaking
commenters.
    The hearing schedule, including the list of speakers, will be
posted on the EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution
prior to the hearing. Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and written
statements will be included in the docket for the rulemaking.

How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for the proposed rule
``Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications and State Implementation Plan
Requirements'' under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0202 (available at
http://www.regulations.gov). The EPA has made available information
related to the proposed rule at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution.

    Dated: December 13, 2016.
Stephen Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2016-30365 Filed 12-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28734-28736]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0016]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 10 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted May 25, 2017. The exemptions expire
on May 25, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On April 24, 2017, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (82 FR 18954). That notice listed 10 applicants' case histories.
The 10 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 10 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 10
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, complete loss of vision, enucleation,
glaucoma, and prosthetic eye. In most cases, their eye conditions were
not recently developed. Nine of the applicants were either born with
their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The one individual that sustained their vision condition as an
adult has had it for 12 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 10 drivers have been

authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 5 to 52
years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes and
one driver was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the April 24, 2017
notice (82 FR 18954).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 10 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes and one driver
was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 10 applicants listed in the notice of April
24, 2017 (82 FR 18954).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 10 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time oaf the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Cheyenne Imlay
stated she is against granting the exemptions due to safety concerns.
FMCSA is required to evaluate medical reports regarding each
applicant's vision deficiency, as well as each applicant's driving
records,

in order to determine if an equal or greater level of safety is likely
to be achieved by permitting each of the applicants to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce. The Agency completed this evaluation for each of
the 10 applicants listed in this notice and determined that an
equivalent or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by
granting the exemptions as would be without the exemptions.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 10 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10):

Russel R. Dixon (VA)
Robert A. Fasset (MI)
William M. Hanes (OH)
Ryan P. Lambert (UT)
Richard D. Patterson (TN)
Jonathan W. Pryor (OK)
Ernesto Silva (NM)
Dennis L. Spence (WA)
Gordon R. Ulm (OH)
Gary L. Warner (VA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: June 14, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-13128 Filed 6-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P