[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59435-59438]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23365]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0247; FRL-9917-38-Region 10]

Revision to the Idaho State Implementation Plan; Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Idaho, Northern Ada
County PM10 Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan and Pinehurst
PM10 Contingency Measures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
Northern Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan
submitted by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) on
March 11, 2013, for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to ten micrometers (PM10). Northern Ada
County was identified as an area of concern for PM10 with
the promulgation of the PM10 NAAQS in 1987, and was formally
designated as a moderate PM10 nonattainment area upon
passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments. In October 2003,
the EPA approved the Northern Ada County PM10 Maintenance
Plan and redesignated the area to attainment for PM10. This
revised Maintenance Plan addresses maintenance of the PM10
standard for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation through
2023, extends the horizon years, and contains revised transportation
conformity budgets. The EPA is also approving the February 15-16, 2011
high wind exceptional event at the Boise Fire Station monitor, as well
as contingency measures for the Pinehurst PM10 Air Quality
Improvement Plan. The EPA is approving the second ten-year
PM10 Maintenance Plan for Northern Ada County and the
Pinehurst PM10 contingency measures pursuant to section 110
of the CAA. The EPA is approving the February 2011 exceptional event
pursuant to 40 CFR 50.14. The EPA received one set of adverse comments
focused primarily on proposed coal export terminals that may be built
in Oregon and Washington that may affect Northern Ada County.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0247. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucy Edmondson at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Northern Ada County was identified as an area of concern for
PM10 with the promulgation of the PM10 NAAQS in
1987, and was formally designated as a moderate PM10
nonattainment area upon passage of the 1990 CAA amendments. Idaho
developed a state implementation plan (SIP) and submitted it to the EPA
in November 1991, later submitting revisions in December 1994 and July
1995. The EPA approved the Northern Ada County PM10 SIP on
May 30, 1996 (61 FR 27019). Idaho submitted a maintenance plan and a
request to redesignate the area to attainment on September 27, 2002,
and provided supplemental information on July 10 and 21, 2003. On
October 27, 2003, the EPA approved the Northern Ada County
PM10 Maintenance Plan and redesignated the area to
attainment status for PM10 (68 FR 61106).
    In actions dated August 25, 1994 (59 FR 43475) and May 26, 1995 (60
FR 27891), the EPA conditionally approved the SIP for the Pinehurst,
Idaho PM10 nonattainment area. The conditional approval
concluded that IDEQ had not satisfied the requirement for contingency
measures for both the City

of Pinehurst and the Pinehurst Expansion area. The EPA set a deadline
of July 20, 1995 for IDEQ to submit the required contingency measures.
IDEQ met the established deadline with its submission ``Contingency
Measures for the Pinehurst PM10 Air Quality Improvement
Plan,'' dated July 13, 1995.
    On September 23, 2013, IDEQ submitted documentation in accordance
with the Exceptional Events Rule (40 CFR 50.14) to demonstrate that the
monitored PM10 values on February 15-16, 2011 at the Boise
monitor were due to a high wind event and resulting dust storm that
originated in Nevada. The EPA proposed approval of this maintenance
plan and the Pinehurst Contingency Measures on February 20, 2014 (79 FR
9697).

II. Response to Comments

    On March 24, 2014, the EPA received one set of comments opposing
the EPA's proposed approval of Northern Ada County PM10
Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan (Ada County PM10 plan). The
comments were focused on the potential impact that possible coal export
terminals, proposed to be built in the Pacific Northwest, could have on
PM10 concentrations in the maintenance area. These comments
are similar to comments previously submitted on February 22, 2013,
related to emissions impacts of locomotive coal transport in the
emissions inventory for the Tacoma fine particulate (PM2.5)
nonattainment area (78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013) and comments submitted
on March 10, 2014, related to the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10-
Year PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan (79 FR 49239, August 20,
2014). The EPA responded to these comments in the May 29, 2013 and
August 20, 2014 final rulemakings. Due to the specific focus of today's
action, the EPA is only addressing those comments directly relevant to
the Ada County PM10 plan.

A. Calculating Growth in Locomotive Traffic

    Comment: The commenter requested that the EPA disapprove the Ada
County PM10 plan because the plan relied on general growth
factors in estimating future railroad traffic without consideration of
future growth associated with proposed coal export terminals that may
be built in Oregon and Washington.
    Response: The EPA guidance regarding development of emissions
inventories requires states to consider reasonably anticipated growth
in emission sources such as increased vehicle miles traveled,
population growth, and possible emissions growth at permitted
stationary sources.\1\ None of the projects in question are far enough
along in their development that the scope or impact of their emissions
can be estimated with any degree of certainty. In this case, the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and/or the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes for coal export proposals
cited in the March 24, 2014 letter are ongoing. It is not known whether
the facilities will be constructed, and if they are constructed, the
size and scope of operations that would be authorized. In addition, as
the commenter notes, there are several possible rail routes that could
be used in the future and it is not known whether locomotive traffic
associated with coal shipments would traverse or bypass the Ada County
maintenance area or, as may be the case, whether routes would
constantly vary based on decisions by the rail operator. Given the
range of uncertainty surrounding the proposed terminals, including
whether the terminals will be constructed, the location (s) of such
terminals and decisions of terminal and railway operators that would
affect rail routes, the EPA believes it would be unreasonable to
disapprove the Ada County PM10 plan on the basis that the
emissions inventory did not estimate potential future events that may
or may not impact the maintenance area. Should any of these coal export
facilities be built in the future, both the EPA and the State have the
authority under the EPA's longstanding guidance regarding contingency
measures to reexamine emissions inventories and establish additional
control measures if a noticeable impact on PM10 levels in
Ada County were to occur.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations--EPA-454/R-
05-001. August, 2005, updated November 2005 (hereafter ``emissions
inventory guidance'' or ``guidance'').
    \2\ Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment. John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division
to Regional Air Directors, September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Calculating Fugitive Dust Impacts From Coal Export Locomotive
Traffic

    Comment: The commenter noted Washington State's Kent, Seattle, and
Tacoma Second 10-Year PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan
submittal which included a calculation of estimated fugitive coal dust
emissions as part of the 2011 baseline emissions inventory for that
area (Docket No. EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0713)(Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma
PM10 plan). The commenter requested that the EPA disapprove
the Ada County PM10 plan because it did not contain a
comparable estimate of fugitive coal dust emissions.
    Response: A key difference between the Washington and Idaho plans
is that there is already coal-related locomotive activity through the
Washington maintenance areas on the way to export through Canada,
captured as part of the 2011 baseline emissions inventory. The
commenter provides no compelling evidence to suggest that Ada County
experiences similar Canadian export traffic like Kent, Seattle, and
Tacoma. Instead the commenter's focus is on proposed export terminals
that may or may not be built in Oregon and Washington. As noted above,
consideration of potential, future impacts of projects that may or may
not be built is not a reasonable basis for disapproving the Ada County
PM10 plan. The EPA also notes that the commenter raised
several issues specific to the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma
PM10 plan fugitive dust estimation methodology which are not
germane to the Ada County PM10 plan and therefore not
addressed here.
    Comment: The Commenter noted that modeling conducted by the Sierra
Club of the potential impacts of the proposed Ambre Energy Coyote
Island Terminal in Morrow predicts elevated PM2.5 emissions.
The commenter indicates that results for PM2.5 could be
assumed to be PM10 and that this information is enough to
conclude that there would be high levels of PM10 emissions
that could result in exceedances in Ada County.
    Response: The Tran Modeling analysis evaluated potential emissions
from the proposed Ambre Energy Coyote Island Terminal in Morrow, Oregon
and calculated emissions near the facility at values above the NAAQS.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the proposed Morrow Terminal,
including whether the facility will be constructed, the EPA believes it
would be unreasonable to disapprove the Ada County PM10
Maintenance Plan on the basis of this modeling analysis. In addition,
because the modeling predicts emission levels near the facility in
Oregon, the EPA believes it is unreasonable to draw conclusions about
how these emissions could affect Ada County, Idaho. Should this
facility be built in the future, both the EPA and the state have the
authority under the EPA's longstanding guidance regarding contingency
measures to establish additional control measures if a noticeable
impact on PM10 levels in Ada County were to occur.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to approve the Northern Ada County
PM10 Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan and Pinehurst
PM10 Contingency Measures. This action approves and
incorporates into the SIP the PM10 control measures
submitted by IDEQ on March 11, 2013 and July 13, 1995, respectively.
The EPA is also approving the February 15-16, 2011 high wind
exceptional event at the Boise Fire Station monitor. Provisions
describing state or local enforcement authority are not incorporated
into the SIP to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's independent
authorities.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 1, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 11, 2014.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart N--Idaho

0
2. In Sec.  52.670, paragraph (e), the table entitled ``EPA-APPROVED
IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES'' is
amended by adding two new entries at the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                    EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or          State       EPA approval date         Comments
                                    nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Northern Ada County PM10 Second    Northern Ada County         3/11/13  10/2/14 [Insert FR
 Ten-Year Maintenance Plan.                                              citation].
Pinehurst PM10 Contingency         Pinehurst/Shoshone          7/13/95  10/2/14 [Insert FR
 Measures.                          County.                              citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.672 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) and adding
paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.672  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) EPA approves as a revision to the Idaho State Implementation
Plan, the Northern Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year
Maintenance Plan adopted by the State on March 11, 2013.
    (3) EPA approves as a revision to the Idaho State Implementation
Plan, the Pinehurst PM10 Contingency Measures, adopted by
the State on July 13, 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-23365 Filed 10-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55373-55375]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0035]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from five 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 November 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0035 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0035. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 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 Docket
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-2019-0035), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0035. Click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type
your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether
you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a
third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit

comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0035 and choose the document 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., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The five 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

Jacob Brenwall

    Mr. Brenwall is a 32-year-old class D driver in Wisconsin. He has a
history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1999. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 1999. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Brenwall receiving an exemption.

Frederick Costello

    Mr. Costello is a 53-year-old class D driver in New York. He has a
history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1987. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 2017. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Costello receiving an exemption.

Robert Davidson

    Mr. Davidson is a 67-year-old class A CDL holder in Idaho. He has a
history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1999. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 1999. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Davidson receiving an exemption.

Joshua Pittman

    Mr. Pittman is a 38-year-old class C driver in California. He has a
history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2007. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2011. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Pittman receiving an exemption.

Philip Stoddart

    Mr. Stoddart is a 30-year-old class D driver in New York. He has a
history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2009. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2009. His physician states that she is supportive of Mr.
Stoddart 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.

    Issued on: October 4, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-22503 Filed 10-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23959-23963]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10977]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83276; File No. SR-FINRA-2018-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Simplified Arbitration

May 17, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On January 29, 2018, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,
proposed amendments to FINRA Rules 12600 and 12800 of the Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and
13600 and 13800 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry
Disputes (``Industry Code,'' and together with the Customer Code, the
``Codes''), to amend the hearing provisions to provide an additional
hearing option for parties in arbitration with claims of $50,000 or
less, excluding interest and expenses.
    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 16, 2018.\1\ The public comment period closed on
March 9, 2018. On March 28, 2018, FINRA extended the time period in
which the Commission must approve the proposed rule change, disapprove
the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether
to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to May 17, 2018. The
Commission received 12 comment letters in response to the Notice.\2\ On
May 7, 2018, FINRA responded to the comment letters received in
response to the Notice.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-82693 (February 12, 2018),
83 FR 7086 (February 16, 2018) (``Notice'').
    \2\ See Letters from Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett & Caruso,
P.C., dated February 13, 2018 (``Caruso Letter''); Andrew Stoltmann,
President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, dated March
6, 2018 (``PIABA Letter''); Eric Duhon and Paige Foley, Student
Attorneys, Investor Protection Clinic, William S. Boyd School of
Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, dated March 6, 2018 (``UNLV
Letter''); Katherine Kokotos, Amrita Maitlall, and Sumaya Restagno,
Legal Interns, and Christine Lazaro, Director of the Securities
Arbitration Clinic and Professor of Clinical Legal Education, St.
John's University School of Law, dated March 6, 2018 (``SJU
Letter''); Daniel P. Guernsey, Student Intern and Teresa J. Verges,
Director, University of Miami School of Law Investor Rights Clinic,
dated March 6, 2018 (``MIRC Letter''); Jill I. Gross, Professor of
Law, Elisabeth Haub School of Law, Pace University, dated march 8,
2018 (``Gross Letter''); William A. Jacobson, Clinical Professor of
Law and Director, Cornell Securities Law Clinic, and Sam Wildman,
Cornell University Law School, dated March 8, 2018 (``Cornell
Letter''); Kevin M. Carroll, Managing Director and Associate General
Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association,
dated March 8, 2018 (``SIFMA Letter''); Barbara Black, Professor of
Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law (Retired), dated March
8, 2018 (``Black Letter''); John Ripoli, Simon Halper, and Mark
Sarno, Student Interns, and Elissa Germaine, Director, Investor
Rights Clinic at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law, Pace University,
dated March 8, 2018 (``PIRC Letter''); Abigail Howd, Eric Peters,
and Dowdy White, Student Interns, and Nicole G. Iannarone, Assistant
Clinical Professor, Investor Advocacy Clinic, Georgia State
University College of Law, dated March 9, 2018 (``GSU Letter''); and
Mark D. Norych, President and General Counsel, Arbitration
Resolution Services, Inc., dated March 9, 2018 (``ARS Letter'').
    \3\ See Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Associate Chief Counsel,
FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution, to the Commission, dated May 7,
2018 (``FINRA Letter''). The FINRA Letter is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA,
at the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2018-003/finra2018003-3590730-162342.pdf, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order approves the proposal.

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Codes provide two methods for administering arbitration cases
with claims involving $50,000 or less, excluding interest and expenses.
The default method is a decision by a single arbitrator based on the
parties' pleadings and other materials submitted by the parties. The
alternative method involves a full hearing with a single arbitrator.
Under the Customer Code, a customer may request a hearing (regardless
of whether the customer is a claimant or respondent),\4\ and under the
Industry Code, the claimant may request a hearing.\5\ If a hearing is
requested, it is generally held in-person, and there are no limits on
the number of hearing sessions that can take place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See FINRA Rule 12800(c).
    \5\ See FINRA Rule 13800(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that forum users with claims involving $50,000 or
less would benefit by having an additional, intermediate form of
adjudication that would provide them with an opportunity to argue their
cases before an arbitrator in a shorter, limited telephonic hearing
format. Therefore, FINRA is proposing to amend the Codes to include a
Special Proceeding for Simplified Arbitration (``Special Proceeding'').
The Special Proceeding would be limited to two hearing sessions,
exclusive of prehearing conferences,\6\ with parties being given time
limits for their presentations. As discussed above, parties with claims
involving $50,000 or less are currently limited to a decision based on
the pleadings and other materials submitted by the parties, or a full
hearing that typically takes place in-person and is not limited in
duration. While a party might wish for an opportunity to present his or
her case to an arbitrator, the travel and expenses associated with a
full hearing might prevent that party from requesting one. In addition,
the prospect of cross-examination by an opposing party might act as a
deterrent for parties seeking to avoid a direct confrontation with
their opponents. FINRA noted that these concerns particularly impact
pro se, senior, and seriously ill parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See FINRA Rules 12100 and 13100 (Definitions). Under these
rules, ``hearing'' means the hearing on the merits of an arbitration
and a ``hearing session'' is defined as any meeting between the
parties and arbitrator(s) of four hours or less, including a hearing
or a prehearing conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The suggestion to propose an intermediate form of adjudication
originated from the FINRA Dispute Resolution Task Force (``Task
Force'').\7\ The Task Force observed that customers whose cases were
decided on the papers were the least satisfied of any group of forum
users. They also noted that, from the arbitrator's perspective, it is
more

difficult to assess crucial issues of credibility when deciding cases
on the papers. The Task Force recommended that the goal of the
intermediate process should be to give the claimant personal contact
with the arbitrator deciding the case and to give each party the
opportunity to argue its case, to ask questions, and to respond to
contentions from the other side. The Task Force also recommended that
the intermediate process should allow the arbitrator to probe
contentions in the papers in an interactive format.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Task Force was formed in 2014 to suggest strategies to
enhance the transparency, impartiality, and efficiency of FINRA's
securities dispute resolution forum. On December 16, 2015, the Task
Force issued its Final Report and Recommendations, available at
http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/Final-DR-task-force-report.pdf.
    \8\ Id. at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA considered the Task Force's recommendations and questions in
developing the format for an intermediate form of adjudication.\9\
Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to amend Rules 12800(c) and 13800(c) to
provide that parties that opt for a hearing must select between two
hearing options. Option One would be the current hearing option that
provides for the regular provisions of the Codes relating to
prehearings and hearings, including all fee provisions. If the parties
choose Option One, they would continue to have in-person hearings
without time limits, and they would continue to be permitted to
question opposing parties' witnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Task Force provided the following questions for FINRA to
consider in developing an intermediate form of adjudication: (1)
Whether parties appearing should be able to amplify positions taken
in their papers and to answer questions posed by the arbitrator; (2)
whether fact witnesses should be permitted to tell their stories to
the arbitrator; (3) whether there should be a clear boundary between
the informal, expedited adjudication and a full-blown hearing; (4)
whether witnesses should be subject to cross-examination by adverse
counsel; (5) whether parties should be able to compel the attendance
of particular witnesses, and if so, should there be a limit; (6)
what arrangements should be made for parties who are not appearing
in person; and (7) whether arbitrators should use the session as an
opportunity to press the parties to settle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Option Two would be the new Special Proceeding subject to the
regular provisions of the Code relating to prehearings and hearings,
including all fee provisions, with several limiting conditions. The
conditions are intended to ensure that the parties have an opportunity
to present their case to an arbitrator in a convenient and cost
effective manner without being subject to cross-examination by an
opposing party.
    Specifically:
     A Special Proceeding would be held by telephone unless the
parties agree to another method of appearance; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Task Force recommended allowing parties with claims
involving $50,000 or less to be able to appear in whatever manner
they prefer: In person, by phone or by videoconference. FINRA
determined that it is in the best interest of the parties to hold
hearings by telephone because this method is the most expeditious
and inexpensive format for hearings. As stated above, FINRA is
proposing that parties can agree to other methods of appearance,
including appearing in person or by videoconference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the claimants, collectively, would be limited to two hours
to present their case and \1/2\ hour for any rebuttal and closing
statement, exclusive of questions from the arbitrator and responses to
such questions;
     the respondents, collectively, would be limited to two
hours to present their case and \1/2\ hour for any rebuttal and closing
statement, exclusive of questions from the arbitrator and responses to
such questions;
     notwithstanding the abovementioned conditions, the
arbitrator would have the discretion to cede his or her allotted time
to the parties;
     in no event could a Special Proceeding exceed two hearing
sessions, exclusive of prehearing conferences, to be completed in one
day;
     the parties would not be permitted to question the
opposing parties' witnesses;
     the Customer Code would provide that a customer could not
call an opposing party, a current or former associated person of a
member party, or a current or former employee of a member party as a
witness, and members and associated persons could not call a customer
of a member party as a witness; and
     the Industry Code would provide that members and
associated persons could not call an opposing party as a witness.
    Except for the two hearing session time limit for a Special
Proceeding, FINRA would not impose any restrictions on the arbitrator's
ability to ask the parties questions and has incorporated a substantial
amount of time for arbitrator questions. Specifically, since FINRA
would limit the parties' combined presentations to five hours, the
arbitrator would have up to three hours to ask questions. In addition,
under the proposed rule change FINRA would not prohibit the arbitrator
from allowing parties additional time for their presentations or
witness testimonies, so long as the hearing on the merits is completed
within the two hearing session limit.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Task Force recommended a shorter time limit on each
case to enable an arbitrator to hear several cases in a hearing day
and to limit the time commitment of the parties. FINRA was concerned
that a period shorter than the proposed two hearing session time
limit would restrict the parties' presentations and their ability to
answer questions posed by the arbitrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is further proposing to amend Rule 12800(a) to add clarity to
the rule by explaining the customer's options earlier in the rule text.
FINRA is proposing to amend the sentence in Rule 12800(c) that states
that ``[I]f no hearing is held, no initial prehearing conference or
other prehearing conference will be held, and the arbitrator will
render an award based on the pleadings and other materials submitted by
the parties.'' FINRA would replace the first ``held'' in the sentence
with the term ``requested'' to better reflect that a hearing would only
occur if the customer requested it. FINRA believes the amendment would
add clarity to the rule text. FINRA is further proposing to amend Rule
12600(a) that discusses exceptions to when required hearings will be
held to specify Rule 12800(c) as one of the exceptions.
    To add clarity on how arbitrators are paid in cases where the
customer requests a hearing, FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 12800(f)
to clarify that the regular provisions of the Code relating to
arbitrator honoraria would apply in such cases. Since the Special
Proceeding would be a new form of adjudication at the forum, FINRA
intends to provide substantial training to arbitrators including, but
not limited to, updating FINRA's written training materials for
arbitrators, posting a Neutral Workshop video on the FINRA website for
arbitrators to view on-demand, and including discussions about the
Special Proceeding in FINRA's publication for arbitrators and
mediators, The Neutral Corner. FINRA would instruct arbitrators that
the arbitrator's role in a Special Proceeding might be different than
it is in a full hearing because parties would not be permitted to
question opposing parties' witnesses. FINRA would emphasize that in a
Special Proceeding the arbitrator might need to ask more questions than
he or she would ask in a regular hearing to gain clarity on issues and
to assess witness credibility.

III. Comment Summary and FINRA's Response

    As noted above, the Commission received 12 comment letters on the
proposed rule change and a response letter from FINRA. As discussed in
more detail below, 11 commenters supported the proposed rule change,
although seven commenters supported it with suggested
modifications.\12\ Commenters

who supported the proposed rule change stated, among other things, that
it would: (1) Facilitate fairness and efficiency in the arbitration
forum; \13\ (2) provide access to justice for pro se claimants; \14\
(3) provide an additional option for investors; \15\ (4) result in
lower costs, increased representation rates of claimants, and greater
participant satisfaction with the arbitration process; \16\ (5) lead to
more investor trust in the process; \17\ and (6) improve both
procedural and substantive justice.\18\ One commenter did not expressly
support or oppose the proposed rule change.\19\ However, one commenter
asserted objections to specific aspects of the proposed rule change and
made recommendations for modifications.\20\ As referenced above,
several commenters suggested modifications to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ARS Letter, PIABA Letter, SJU Letter, MIRC Letter,
Black Letter, PIRC Letter, and GSU Letter. ARS proposed the creation
of a pilot whereby parties could opt in to voluntary expedited
online arbitration at its forum. This comment is outside the scope
of the proposed rule change.
    \13\ See, e.g. Caruso Letter, stating that ``the proposed
amendments . . . would be a fair, equitable and reasonable approach
that would facilitate the fairness and efficiency of the investor
participants experience in the FINRA arbitration forum.''
    \14\ See, e.g. Gross Letter, stating that ``This simpler, lower
cost and faster process provides access to justice especially for
pro se claimants, as well as the elderly and disabled.''
    \15\ See, e.g. PIABA Letter, stating that ``it is important to
have additional options related to simplified arbitration.''
    \16\ See, e.g. UNLV Letter, stating that ``Special Proceedings
will result in lower costs, increased representation rates of
claimants, and greater participant satisfaction with the arbitration
process.'' The UNLV Letter also states that ``[a]t present, the
private bar may provide less representation in [cases with less than
$50,000 in dispute] because of the time required to prepare adequate
pleadings or conduct an in-person hearing. An attorney may incur
significant costs preparing for and traveling to an in-person
arbitration, including the opportunity costs associated with
foregoing work on other matters. The proposed Special Proceedings
would substantially reduce or even eliminate many of these costs.''
    \17\ See MIRC Letter, stating that ``simplifying the hearing
process and allowing investors to tell their story gives investors a
sense of participation that they do not get when their case is
decided on the papers . . . and therefore can lead to more investor
trust in the process.''
    \18\ See Gross Letter, stating that ``[N]ot only does the
proposal offer more choices to small claim claimants, but it also
designs a small claims arbitration process that improves both
procedural and substantive justice by providing a viable option for
disputants to voice their grievances out loud to a third-party
neutral.''
    \19\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-Examination

    One commenter stated that FINRA should permit cross-examination on
fairness and due process grounds asserting, among other matters, that
``members and associated persons should have the right to explore,
identify, examine, and highlight errors, omissions, and misstatements
that bear upon the credibility, accuracy and completeness of a
claimant's or witness's testimony.'' \21\ Another commenter urged FINRA
to allow limited cross-examination of one or two key witnesses stating
that ``cross examination is often one of the most effective means of
eliciting evidence during a hearing.'' \22\ Several commenters
supported FINRA's prohibition on cross-examination in a Special
Proceeding.\23\ Two commenters asserted that trained and experienced
FINRA arbitrators have the knowledge and judgment to ask questions and
obtain much of the same information that would have been revealed
through cross-examination.\24\ Moreover, one of those two commenters
stated that ``because formal rules of evidence do not apply in
arbitration, cross-examination rarely yields the `gotcha' moment we
might see dramatized on television.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See SIFMA Letter at 2.
    \22\ See PIABA Letter at 2.
    \23\ See Gross Letter, UNLV Letter, SJU Letter, MIRC Letter,
Black Letter, and PIRC Letter.
    \24\ See UNLV Letter at 2 and Gross Letter at 5.
    \25\ See Gross Letter at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA noted in the FINRA Letter that the absence of cross-
examination is one of the main features that distinguishes a Special
Proceeding from the full hearing option.\26\ FINRA believes that the
ability to present a case without cross-examination would benefit
parties whose testimony could be intimidated by a direct
confrontation.\27\ FINRA also believes that the broader role of
arbitrators in a Special Proceeding in asking questions of the parties
would serve a similar function to cross-examination, such as gaining
clarity on issues and assessing witness credibility, but within a
potentially less intimidating environment.\28\ Moreover, FINRA is not
eliminating the cross-examination feature in the full hearing option. A
customer (under the Customer Code), or a claimant (under the Industry
Code), would continue to have the option of electing a full hearing if
the party believes that cross-examination would be beneficial in a
particular case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See FINRA Letter at 3.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Right To Request a Special Proceeding Under the Codes

    One commenter asserted that FINRA should allow firms and their
associated persons to request a Special Proceeding.\29\ The FINRA
Letter notes that, currently, no hearing will be held in simplified
cases unless the customer (under the Customer Code), or a claimant
(under the Industry Code), requests a hearing.\30\ FINRA stated that,
in developing the proposal, it considered whether to expand the right
of firms and associated persons under the Customer Code, and
respondents under the Industry Code, to request a Special
Proceeding.\31\ FINRA decided not to change the rights of the parties
under the Codes relating to the ability to elect a hearing option.\32\
FINRA believes it is in the best interest of investors to continue to
allow them to determine how they want to proceed in arbitration. FINRA
further believes that giving the firm, generally the party with the
most resources, the ability to determine the arbitration method, could
create an inappropriate barrier for some investors, particularly if the
firm chooses the most expensive arbitration method.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See SIFMA Letter at 2.
    \30\ See FINRA Letter at 3.
    \31\ See Id.
    \32\ See Id.
    \33\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Mechanisms for Firms and Associated Persons

    One commenter asserted that in a Special Proceeding, FINRA should
allow firms and their associated persons to file a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim, and if granted, the case should be
decided on the papers.\34\ That same commenter stated that because
FINRA does not allow motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim in
instances where a statement of claim lacks specificity or is drafted
poorly, respondents cannot adequately prepare to defend themselves at a
hearing.\35\ That commenter also stated that in a Special Proceeding,
the claimant should be precluded from raising new issues, claims or
evidence not previously raised or referenced in the statement of
claim.\36\ FINRA believes that motions to dismiss should be narrowly
confined to the grounds outlined in Rules 12504 and 13504,\37\ and
notes that parties can

use the discovery process to explore the substance of their opponent's
case.\38\ Moreover, under the Codes, FINRA requires parties to provide
all other parties with copies of all documents and other materials that
they intend to use at the hearing that were not already produced as
well as a copy of the parties' witness lists.\39\ FINRA stated that it
will monitor how the process is working to determine whether it should
modify the program in any way.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
    \35\ See Id.
    \36\ See Id.
    \37\ See FINRA Letter at 3. FINRA Rules 12504(a) and 13504(a)
(Motions to Dismiss Prior to Conclusion of Case in Chief) provide
that: ``The panel cannot act upon a motion to dismiss a party or
claim under paragraph (a) of this rule, unless the panel determines
that:
    (A) The non-moving party previously released the claim(s) in
dispute by a signed settlement agreement and/or written release;
    (B) the moving party was not associated with the account(s),
security(ies), or conduct at issue; or
    (C) the non-moving party previously brought a claim regarding
the same dispute against the same party that was fully and finally
adjudicated on the merits and memorialized in an order, judgment,
award, or decision.''
    Under FINRA Rules 12504(c) and 13504(c) (Motions to Dismiss
Based on Eligibility), the panel cannot act upon a motion to dismiss
a claim under Rule 12206 (Time Limits), unless the panel determines
that the claim is not eligible for arbitration where six years have
elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim.
    \38\ FINRA Rules 12800(d) and 13800(d) (Discovery and Additional
Evidence) provide that: ``The parties may request documents and
other information from each other. All requests for the production
of documents and other information must be servced on all other
parties, and filed with the Director, within 30 days from the date
that the last answer is due. Any response or objection to a
discovery request must be served on all other parties and filed with
the Director within 10 days of the receipt of the requests. The
parties receiving the request must produce the requested documents
or information to all other parties by serving the requested
documents or information by first-class mail, overnight delivery
service, hand delivery, email or facsimile. Parties must not file
the documents with the Director. The arbitrator will resolve any
discovery disputes.
    \39\ FINRA Rules 12514(a) and 13514(a) (Documents and Other
Materials) provide that: ``At least 20 days before the first
scheduled hearing date, all parties must provide all other parties
with copies of all documents and other materials in their possession
or control that they intend to use at the hearing that have not
already been produced. The parties should not file the documents
with the Director or the arbitrators before the hearing.''
    FINRA Rules 12514(b) and 13514(b) (Witness Lists) provide that:
``At least 20 days before the first scheduled hearing date, all
parties must provide each other party with the names and business
affiliations of all witnesses they intend to present at the hearing.
All parties must file their witness lists with the Director.''
    \40\ See FINRA Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarify the Structure of the Special Proceedings

    One commenter stated that FINRA should allow parties to give their
closing statements after each party presents its case and the
arbitrator concludes his or her questioning.\41\ FINRA responded by
noting that it provides arbitrators with hearing scripts to ensure that
parties understand how the hearing will progress.\42\ FINRA stated that
it will provide a new hearing script specific to Special Proceedings
which will state that absent circumstances indicating the need to hold
the hearing in a different order, parties will be allowed to give their
closing statements after each party presents its case and the
arbitrator concludes his or her questioning.\43\ In addition, FINRA
will explain in the Regulatory Notice announcing approval of the
proposed rule change, and in its arbitrator training materials, how the
hearing will be conducted, including when parties are allowed to make
closing statements.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See GSU Letter at 2.
    \42\ See FINRA Letter at 4.
    \43\ See FINRA Letter at 4.
    \44\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter objected to the time allotments in the rule
proposal and recommended allotments made on a percentage or other
basis.\45\ According to FINRA, the conditions outlined in the proposed
rule change are intended to ensure that the parties have an opportunity
to present their case to an arbitrator in a convenient and cost-
effective manner.\46\ The time frames are specific and straightforward.
FINRA believes that the time frames will help arbitrators and parties
stay within the two session maximum for a Special Proceeding.\47\ FINRA
stated that it will clearly articulate the time frames in its hearing
script.\48\ Moreover, through correspondence and written materials,
FINRA currently reminds arbitrators to stay on schedule during the
arbitration hearing and avoid reducing the allotted time by starting
late or ending early. In addition, FINRA stated that it would emphasize
during the arbitrator training on Special Proceedings the importance of
ensuring that arbitrators are mindful of the time frames outlined in
the rule text.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
    \46\ See FINRA Letter at 5.
    \47\ See Id.
    \48\ See Id.
    \49\ See FINRA Letter at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Methods of Appearance

    One commenter stated that FINRA should encourage the use of
videoconferencing because this technology affords the arbitrator a
chance to better assess the credibility of witnesses.\50\ Another
commenter stated that FINRA should allow customers to choose a hearing
by videoconference or in person.\51\ FINRA responded by noting that the
proposed rule change allows the parties to agree to other methods of
appearance, including appearing in person or by videoconference. FINRA
determined that it is in the best interest of the parties to make
telephonic hearings the default hearing type because this method is the
most widely available, expeditious and inexpensive format for
hearings.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See MIRC Letter at 2.
    \51\ See PIRC Letter at 2.
    \52\ See FINRA Letter at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raise the Dollar Limits on Simplified Arbitration

    One commenter stated that FINRA should raise the current dollar
limit on simplified arbitration from $50,000 to $75,000 and increase
the dollar limit of the rule proposal to $100,000.\53\ FINRA stated
that it will consider the feasibility of increasing the dollar limits
on simplified arbitration after it has gained experience with Special
Proceedings.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See SJU Letter at 2.
    \54\ See FINRA Letter at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abridged Discovery Guide

    Currently, the Customer Code provides that Document Production
Lists do not apply to simplified cases. Two commenters recommended that
FINRA provide a Discovery Guide (``Guide'') containing a shorter
Document Production List for the exchange of documents in all
simplified cases.\55\ One of those two commenters further stated that
FINRA should provide parties with some additional time for discovery
exchange.\56\ FINRA responded by noting that staff is currently
studying potential enhancements to the discovery process in simplified
arbitration generally that would not impede the expedited nature of
simplified cases,\57\ and that FINRA would consider whether any such
enhancements would also apply to the Special Proceedings.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See MIRC Letter at 3, GSU Letter at 3. The Guide
supplements the discovery rules contained in the Customer Code. It
includes an introduction which describes the discovery process
generally, and explains how arbitrators should apply the Guide in
arbitration proceedings. The introduction is followed by two
Document Production Lists, one for firms and associated persons, and
one for customers, which enumerate the documents that are
presumptively discoverable in customer cases. As presumptively
discoverable, parties do not have to expressly request the
documents. FINRA expects the parties to exchange the documents
without arbitrator or staff intervention. The Guide only applies to
customer arbitration proceedings, not to intra-industry cases.
    \56\ See MIRC Letter at 3.
    \57\ See FINRA Letter at 5.
    \58\ See FINRA Letter at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specially-Qualified Arbitrator Roster and Mandatory Training

    Two commenters supported FINRA's intent to provide additional
arbitrator training on Special Proceedings.\59\ Two other commenters
stated that FINRA should make arbitrator training on Special
Proceedings a requirement.\60\ One of those commenters recommended in-
person training and also stated that FINRA should require specialized
expertise for arbitrators presiding over Special Proceedings.\61\ Two
commenters

recommended that FINRA establish a special roster of arbitrators to
handle Special Proceedings.\62\ One of those two commenters stated that
the arbitrators should be chair-qualified and trained to work with pro
se claimants.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See SJU Letter at 2, Cornell Letter at 2.
    \60\ See Black Letter at 1, GSU Letter at 1.
    \61\ See GSU Letter at 1.
    \62\ See MIRC Letter at 3, Black Letter at 1.
    \63\ See MIRC Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FINRA Letter noted that all simplified cases are decided by a
single chair-qualified public arbitrator who has fulfilled special
eligibility requirements and completed chairperson training.\64\ FINRA
will provide arbitrator training in Special Proceedings through a
Neutral Workshop video on the FINRA website for arbitrators to view on
demand, and written training materials for arbitrators including, but
not limited to, discussions about the Special Proceeding in FINRA's
publication for arbitrators and mediators, The Neutral Corner.\65\ In
its training, FINRA would instruct arbitrators that the arbitrator's
role in a Special Proceeding might be different than it is in a full
hearing because parties would not be permitted to question opposing
parties' witnesses.\66\ FINRA would emphasize that in a Special
Proceeding the arbitrator might need to ask more questions than he or
she would ask in a regular hearing to gain clarity on issues and to
assess witness credibility.\67\ FINRA believes it needs time and
experience with the new hearing option before it can consider
additional qualifications and requirements for arbitrators.\68\ While
FINRA will strongly encourage arbitrators to avail themselves of
training resources on Special Proceedings, FINRA is concerned about the
potential negative impact that additional required training could have
on the availability of arbitrators to serve on Special Proceedings.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See FINRA Letter at 6.
    \65\ See Id.
    \66\ See Id.
    \67\ See Id.
    \68\ See Id.
    \69\ See FINRA Letter at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change the Name of the Simplified Arbitration Process

    One commenter recommended that FINRA change the name of the
simplified arbitration process to ``small claims'' arbitration because
their clients believe that their claims are not taken seriously due to
the term ``simplified.'' \70\ The FINRA Letter noted the comment, but
asserted that using the term ``simplified'' appropriately captures the
process and helps distinguish it from the full hearing process.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See GSU Letter at 1.
    \71\ See FINRA Letter at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment
letters, and FINRA's response to the comments, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a
national securities association.\72\ Specifically, the Commission finds
that the rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Exchange Act,\73\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ In approving this rule change, the Commission has
considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \73\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the Notice, FINRA believes that forum users with
claims involving $50,000 or less would benefit by having an additional,
intermediate form of adjudication that would provide them with an
opportunity to argue their cases before an arbitrator in a shorter,
limited telephonic hearing format.\74\ The Commission notes that
FINRA's proposal originated from a recommendation of the Task Force,
which was charged with suggesting strategies to enhance the
transparency, impartiality, and efficiency of FINRA's securities
dispute resolution forum for all participants.\75\ The Task Force
recommendations were informed by input from individuals representing a
broad range of interests in FINRA's dispute resolution forum along with
public comments.\76\ The Commission further notes that eleven of the
twelve public comments received for this proposal were supportive, in
part, because the proposed rule would provide an additional and helpful
option for investors seeking arbitration.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Notice at 7087.
    \75\ See Id.
    \76\ See Final Report and Recommendations at 4, available at
http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/Final-DR-task-force-report.pdf.
    \77\ See ARS Letter, Black Letter, Cornell Letter, Caruso
Letter, PIABA Letter, UNLV Letter, SJU Letter, MIRC Letter, Gross
Letter, PIRC Letter, and GSU Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taking into consideration the comment letters and the FINRA Letter,
the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with the
Exchange Act. The Commission believes that the proposal will help
protect investors and the public interest by providing an additional,
intermediate form of adjudication that would provide arbitration users
with an opportunity to argue their cases before an arbitrator in a
convenient, time-efficient, and cost-effective manner without being
subject to cross-examination by an opposing party. The Commission
further believes that FINRA's response, as discussed in more detail
above, appropriately addressed commenters' concerns about arbitrator
training and adequately explained its reasons for how this additional,
intermediate form of adjudication would better serve some arbitration
forum users by leading to more investor trust in the arbitration
process, providing greater access to justice for pro se claimants, and
facilitating fairness and efficiency. Further, the Commission notes
FINRA's intent to monitor how the process is working to determine
whether it should consider modifying the program in any way, including
by considering the feasibility of increasing the dollar limits on
simplified arbitration, and by studying potential enhancements to the
discovery process in simplified arbitration generally.
    The Commission believes that the approach proposed by FINRA is
appropriate and designed to protect investors and the public interest,
consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act. For these
reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) \78\ of the
Exchange Act that the proposal (SR-FINRA-2018-003) be and hereby is
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \79\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\79\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10977 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 89848-89849]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29774]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 20, 201, 207, 314, 514, 515, 601, 607, and 1271

[Docket No. FDA-2005-N-0464 (Formerly Docket No. 2005N-0403)]

Requirements for Foreign and Domestic Establishment Registration
and Listing for Human Drugs, Including Drugs That Are Regulated Under a
Biologics License Application, and Animal Drugs; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final
rule entitled ``Requirements for Foreign and Domestic Establishment
Registration and Listing for Human Drugs, Including Drugs That Are
Regulated Under a Biologics License Application, and Animal Drugs''
that appeared in the Federal Register of August 31, 2016 (81 FR 60169).
That final rule amended current regulations

concerning who must register establishments and list human drugs, human
drugs that are also biological products, and animal drugs. The final
rule was published with an incorrect statement in the preamble about
the rule's effect on establishments at which investigational drugs are
manufactured. This document corrects that error.

DATES: Effective December 13, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Joy, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6254, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of August 31, 2016
(81 FR 60169), FDA published the final rule ``Requirements for Foreign
and Domestic Establishment Registration and Listing for Human Drugs,
Including Drugs That Are Regulated Under a Biologics License
Application, and Animal Drugs.'' The final rule published with an
incorrect statement in the preamble about the rule's effect on
establishments at which investigational drugs are manufactured. Under
the amended regulations, manufacturers, repackers, relabelers, or
salvagers who manufacture, repack, relabel, or salvage drugs solely for
use in research, teaching, or chemical analysis and not for sale are
exempt from the establishment registration requirement under 21 CFR
207.13(e) if they do not engage in other activities that require them
to register.
    In the Federal Register of August 31, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-20471,
the following correction is made: On page 60185, in the first column,
in the third paragraph under ``2. When must initial registration
information be provided? (Sec.  207.21),'' the following sentence is
removed: ``Accordingly, an establishment at which an investigational
drug is manufactured is subject to the establishment registration
requirement.''

    Dated: December 7, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-29774 Filed 12-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15448]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6346]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twelfth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security
Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of meeting RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security
Access Control Systems.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
twelfth meeting of RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security Access
Control Systems

DATES: The meeting will be held April 5, 2012, from 10 a.m.-4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 224. The agenda will
include the following:

April 5, 2012

     Chairmen's Opening Remarks, Introductions
     Review/Approve Summary--Eleventh Meeting
     Updates from the TSA (as required)
     Workgroup reports
     Industry solicitation progress report
     Association solicitation progress report
     Time and place of next meeting
     Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 2012.
John Raper,
Manager, Business Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-6346 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43194-43195]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17306]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1051-000.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: QPC cleanup to be effective 8/10/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1052-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Hub, LLC.
    Description: Mississippi Hub, LLC ACA Tariff Update July 2013--2 to
be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1053-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Range 8929199 7-11-2013 Negotiated Rate to be
effective 7/11/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5028.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1054-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: ACA Compliance Filing--Docket No. RM12-14-000; Order
No. 776 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1055-000.
    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: ACA Compliance Filing--Docket No. RM12-14-000; Order
No. 776 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1056-000.
    Applicants: Bobcat Gas Storage.
    Description: ACA Compliance Filing--Docket No. RM12-14-000; Order
No. 776 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1057-000.
    Applicants: Egan Hub Storage, LLC.
    Description: ACA Compliance Filing--Docket No. RM12-14-000; Order
No. 776 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1058-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: ACA Compliance Filing--Docket No. RM12-14-000; Order
No. 776 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1059-000.
    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.
    Description: ACA Compliance Filing--Docket No. RM12-14-000; Order
No. 776 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 11, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17306 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P