[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17702-17703]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07302]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 701, [OMB Control No. 3235-0522, SEC File No. 270-306].

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 701 (17 CFR 230.701) under the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act'') (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) provides an exemption for
certain issuers from the registration requirements of the Securities
Act for limited offerings and sales of securities issued under
compensatory benefit plans or contracts. The purpose of Rule 701 is to
ensure that a basic level of information is available to employees and
others when substantial amounts of securities are issued in
compensatory arrangements. We estimate that approximately 300 companies
annually rely on the Rule 701 exemption and that it takes 2 hours to
prepare each response. We estimate that 25% of the 2 hours per response
(0.5 hours) is prepared by the company for a total annual reporting
burden of 150 hours (0.5 hours per response x 300 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 6, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-07302 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30024-30026]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13557]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0525]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lake of the Ozarks, Sunrise Beach, MO

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of the Lake of the Ozarks within 250 feet of a
fireworks launching barge near Sunrise Beach, MO. The safety zone is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or
persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:15 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on June 29,
2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0525 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Christian Barger, Sector Upper
Mississippi River Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River
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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Captain of
the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) was made aware of the
fireworks display on June 13, 2019. The immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the barge
launched fireworks display. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM
because we must establish this safety zone by June 29, 2019 and lack
sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then
consider those comments before issuing this rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated
with the barge-launched fireworks display.

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 Sector Upper
Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with a fireworks display on June 29, 2019 will be a safety
concern for anyone on the Lake of the Ozarks within 250 feet of a barge
being used to launch fireworks near Sunrise Beach, MO. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone before, during, and after the
fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:15 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on
June 29, 2019. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the
Lake of the Ozarks within 250 feet of a barge being used to launch
fireworks in the vicinity latitude 38[deg]10'13.50'' N, longitude
092[deg]38'21.19'' W near Sunrise Beach, MO. The duration of the zone
is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment
in these navigable waters before, during, and after an annual fireworks
display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the
operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River. The COTP or
a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement
date and times for this safety zone, as well as any emergent safety
concerns that may delay the enforcement of the zone through Local
Notices to Mariners (LNMs) and/or actual notice.

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the location,
size, and duration of this rule. This rule is in effect for a small
area of the waterway, all navigable waters of the Lake of the Ozarks
within 250 feet of a barge being used to launch fireworks, and for a
very limited period of time of two and one half hours. It will be in
effect on June 29, 2019, when vessel traffic is not usually heavy. The
location of the barge will be along the west bank of the lake and will
be well outside of the normal path of traffic and the transiting
vessels can go around the zone. In addition, vessels desiring to enter
the zone, can request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

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 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
temporary 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
contact 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

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 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 a safety zone lasting not more than two
and one half hours that will prohibit entry on the Lake of the Ozarks
within 250 feet of a barge being used to launch fireworks in the
vicinity latitude 38[deg]10'13.50'' N, longitude 092[deg]38'21.19'' W
near Sunrise Beach, MO. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(A) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact 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. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0525 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0525  Safety Zone; Lake of the Ozarks, Sunrise Beach, MO.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
navigable waters of Lake of the Ozarks within 250 feet of a barge being
used to launch fireworks in the vicinity latitude 38[deg]10'13.50'' N,
longitude 092[deg]38'21.19'' W near Sunrise Beach, MO.
    (b) Period of enforcement. This section will be enforced from 8:15
p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on June 29, 2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering the
safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper
Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative. A designated
representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG
Sector Upper Mississippi River.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the
zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be contacted by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the enforcement date and times
for this safety zone, as well as any emergent safety concerns that may
delay the enforcement of the zone through Local

Notices to Mariners (LNMs) and/or actual notice.

    Dated: June 19, 2019.
S.A. Stoermer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2019-13557 Filed 6-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8912-8916]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03349]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0018]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 24 individuals
for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will
enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without
meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0018 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number, FMCSA-2022-0018, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),''
choose the first notice listed, and click on the ``Comment'' button.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 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 protected], FMCSA,
DOT, 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 Dockets Operations, (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0018), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2022-0018. Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-
Older),'' choose the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button,
and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. 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 Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2022-0018, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its regulatory 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.transportation.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 24 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV 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 at 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 standard
red, green, and amber.
    On July 16, 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the
Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting
standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to
meet (57 FR 31458). The current Vision Exemption Program was
established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the
statutes governing exemptions made by Sec.  4007 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401
(June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures
established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon
application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of
Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    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 in intrastate commerce with the vision
deficiency for the past three 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 www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's former
waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of
experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all
CMV drivers collectively.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A thorough discussion of this issue may be found in a FHWA
final rule published in the Federal Register on March 26, 1996 and
available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-03-26/pdf/96-7226.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Robert A. Buckley

    Mr. Buckley, 68, has a corneal scar in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1960. The visual acuity in his right eye is no
light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2021, his optometrist stated, ``Mr. Buckley has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks needed to operate a commercial vehicle even
though he is monocular.'' Mr. Buckley reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 53 years, accumulating 1.06 million miles. He holds
an operator's license from Indiana. His driving record for the last

3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Steven L. Crews

    Mr. Crews, 59, has had an inoperable mature cataract in his right
eye due to a traumatic incident in his childhood. The visual acuity in
his right eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, ``Based on
his 30 year history of operating a commercial vehicle, and the visual
findings of his left eye, I think he has sufficient vision to perform
the driving tasks required.'' Mr. Crews reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 31 years, accumulating 1.86 million miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 12 years, accumulating 720,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Arthur B. Edge III

    Mr. Edge, 58, has an enucleation of his left eye due to an
infection in 2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in
his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2021,
his optometrist stated, ``I also certify, that in my medical opinion,
the patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Edge reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 39 years, accumulating 1.56 million miles, tractor-
trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 1.75 million miles, and
buses for 3 years, accumulating 300 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jorge Estol

    Mr. Estol, 47, has had a macular retinal scar in his left eye since
2007. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
20/200. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, ``I
certify that imy [sic] medical opinion, patient has sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Estol reported that he has driven straight trucks for 7
years, accumulating 756,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
7 years, accumulating 756,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

William L. Fuqua

    Mr. Fuqua, 26, has had vitreoretinal adhesion in his right eye
since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. William Fuqua has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Fuqua reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10
years, accumulating 15,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 2
years, accumulating 156,000 miles, and buses for 2 years, accumulating
2,000 miles. He holds a Class DA CDL from Kentucky. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Terry G. Grice

    Mr. Grice, 41, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/300.
Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, ``I also
certify that in my medical opinion Terry Grice has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Grice reported that he has driven straight trucks for 9 years,
accumulating 324,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Indiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gerardo Hernandez

    Mr. Hernandez, 41, has had strabismus in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated,
``In my opinion Mr. Hernandez has sufficient vision to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Hernandez reported that he has driven
tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years, accumulating 4.45 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a non-moving
violation in a CMV: Over 34,000 pounds, tandem axle.

Joshua J. Hilliard

    Mr. Hilliard, 36, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist
stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Hilliard demonstrated no visual
limitations other than described above and poses no significant risk
for operating a commercial vehicle, as long as prescribed glasses or
contacts are worn at all times.'' Mr. Hilliard reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 120,000 miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Orlando M. Hinton

    Mr. Hinton, 40, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
70. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion, Mr. Hinton does have sufficient vision to perform
driving task required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Hinton
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating
630,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years,
accumulating 150,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Joshua M. Howe

    Mr. Howe, 28, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
200. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, ``I
submit this statement to the state of Indiana BMV, regarding Joshua M.
Howe, in order to verify that his visual status is stable and adequate
for continued use of a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Howe reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 2.75
million miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 11 years,
accumulating 55,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Janessen B. Jenkins, Jr.

    Mr. Jenkins, 39, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to a traumatic incident during his childhood. The visual acuity in his
right eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, ``I feel that Mr. Jenkins
is visually capable of performing the driving tasks required of his job
to operate a commercial vehicle'' Mr. Jenkins reported that he has
driven tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 285,000
miles. He holds an operator's license from Georgia. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Justin L. Knoll

    Mr. Knoll, 27, has proliferative retinopathy in his left eye due to
a traumatic incident in 2008. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2021,
his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my professional medical opinion,
Justin is able to safely operate a commercial vehicle which he has been
doing within the State of Michigan since 2013.'' Mr. Knoll reported
that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years,
accumulating 624,000 miles. He holds a Class ECA CDL from Michigan. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert M. Lammon

    Mr. Lammon, 39, has an enucleation in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2017. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination
in 2021, his optometrist stated, ``In my opinion this individual
presents with sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Lammon reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years,
accumulating 500,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 10
years, accumulating 500,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Richard D. Lang

    Mr. Lang, 62, has had retinal artery occlusion in his left eye
since 2018. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/125. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Lang has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Lang reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for
15 years, accumulating 2.175 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
South Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Larry P. Magrath

    Mr. Magrath, 57, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated,
``I believe Larry Magrath has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Magrath reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 375,000
miles and buses for 5 years, accumulating 12,500 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

David L. Mairose

    Mr. Mairose, 57, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
200. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, ``I
certify that, in my medical opinion, this patient has sufficient vision
to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Mairose reported that he has driven straight trucks for 37 years,
accumulating 203,500 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 37
years, accumulating 925,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Darrell L. Marlett

    Mr. Marlett, 50, has had a macular neovascualar scar in his left
eye since 2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his
left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist
stated, ``It is in my opinion, based on all the findings, that Mr.
Marlett should have no issues driving a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Marlett reported that he has driven straight trucks for 1 year,
accumulating 1,500 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 9 years,
accumulating 2.25. million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael T. McGinty

    Mr. McGinty, 34, has a ruptured globe in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2021, his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion, Michal McGinty
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. McGinty reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 14 years, accumulating 109,200 miles. He holds a
Class AM CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Stephen D. Miles

    Mr. Miles, 63, has had histoplasmosis in his left eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
80. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, ``He has
normal color vision and is able to drive a commercial vehicle safely.
His condition is stable.'' Mr. Miles reported that he has driven
tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 3.15 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows one crash for which he was cited for a moving
violation in a CMV for careless driving.

Joshua D. Mylan

    Mr. Mylan, 37, has had glaucoma in his right eye since 2016. The
visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2021, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``In my opinion Mr. Mylan has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Mylan
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating
153,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years,
accumulating 68,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Albert M. Randle

    Mr. Randle, 60, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since
2006. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
no light perception. Following an examination in 2021, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Randle has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Randle reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 4 years, accumulating 192,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 29 years, accumulating 3.48 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Mitchell L. Reineke

    Mr. Reineke, 34, has had a retinal scar in his left eye since
birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2022, his
optometrist stated, ``Mitchell's vision is adequate for driving a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Reineke reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 18 years, accumulating 36,000 miles, and tractor-

trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 4,500 miles. He holds an
operator's license from Nebraska. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Ritchy R. Richards

    Mr. Richards, 50, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due
to a traumatic incident in 2017. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an
examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, ``It is in my medical
opinion Mr. Richards has sufficient vision in his right eye to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Richards reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years,
accumulating 675,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New
Mexico. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Antwine Simmons II

    Mr. Simmons, 37, has glaucoma in his left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 2012. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2021 his
ophthalmologist stated, ``It is my medical opinion that Mr. Simmons has
sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Simmons
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating
288,312 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

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 and material
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated
under the DATES section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03349 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24463-24465]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09809]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72016; File No. SR-EDGX-2014-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Footnote 4 of the Exchange's
Fee Schedule To Permit Members To Designate Their Retail Orders To Be
Identified as Retail on the EDGX Book Feed

April 24, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 17, 2014, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 4 of its Fee Schedule to
permit Members to designate that their Retail Orders be identified as
Retail on the EDGX Book Feed. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at www.directedge.com, at
the Exchange's principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of
the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 4 of its Fee Schedule to
permit Members to designate that their Retail Orders be identified as
Retail on the EDGX Book Feed. Footnote 4 of the Exchange's Fee Schedule
defines a Retail Order \3\ and provides an attestation requirement \4\
that Members must complete to send Retail Orders to the Exchange.
Footnote 4 of the Exchange's Fee Schedule also provides that Members
may designate orders as Retail Orders on an order-by-order basis or a
port level basis by designating particular FIX ports as Retail Order
Ports.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Retail Order is defined as (i) an agency order or riskless
principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 that
originates from a natural person; (ii) is submitted to EDGX by a
Member, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order;
and (iii) the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or
any other computerized methodology. See Footnote 4 of the Exchange's
Fee Schedule available at http://www.directedge.com/Trading/EDGXFeeSchedule.aspx; Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68310
(November 28, 2012), 77 FR 71860 (December 4, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-
47) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 69378 (April 15, 2013), 78 FR 23617 (April
19, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-13) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness).
    \4\ Members must submit a signed written attestation, in a form
prescribed by the Exchange, that they have implemented policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that substantially
all orders designated by the Member as a ``Retail Order'' comply
with the above requirements. See Footnote 4 of the Exchange's Fee
Schedule available at http://www.directedge.com/Trading/EDGXFeeSchedule.aspx; Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68310
(November 28, 2012), 77 FR 71860 (December 4, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-
47) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69852 (June 25, 2013), 78 FR
39420 (July 1, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-20) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68554 (December 31,
2012), 78 FR 966 (January 7, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2012-48) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Members may elect that their display-eligible orders
entered into the Exchange utilize Attributable Orders \6\ to include
their market participant identifier (``MPID'') with their published
quotations on the EDGX Book Feed. The Exchange now proposes to amend
Footnote 4 of its Fee Schedule to permit Members to designate that
their Retail Orders be identified as Retail on the EDGX Book Feed,
rather than by their MPID.\7\ A Member may elect that their Retail
Orders be identified as Retail on an order-by-order basis or instruct
the Exchange to identify all its Retail Orders as Retail on a port-by-
port basis where that port is also designated as a Retail Order Port.
However, if a Member instructs the Exchange to identify all its orders
as Retail on a Retail Order Port, it will not be able to designate any
Retail Order from that port as an Attributable Order or as a Non-
Attributable Order.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ An Attributable Order is defined as, ``[a]n order that is
designated for display (price and size) including the Member's
market participant identifier (`MPID').'' See Rule 11.5(c)(18).
    \7\ A Member's decision on whether to identify their Retail
Order as Retail under the proposed rule change will not impact that
Member's eligibility to qualify for a rebate under the Retail Order
Tier included in Footnote 4 of the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
    \8\ A Non-Attributable Order is defined as ``[a]n order that is
designated for display (price and size) on an anonymous basis by the
Exchange. See Rule 11.5(c)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange will announce the effective date of the proposed rule
change in a Trading Notice to be published no later than 30 days
following approval of the proposed rule change by the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal will benefit market
participants and help to promote transparency by providing additional
information regarding quotations displayed on the Exchange and
disseminated via the EDGX Book Feed. Specifically, any Member who
satisfies the requirement under Footnote 4 of the Fee Schedule that
wishes to disclose via the EDGX Book Feed that their order is a Retail
Order will be permitted to do so, and such retail quotations will be
analogous to identified trading interest in other contexts.\11\ The
proposal also promotes transparency by disseminating additional order
information from Members who may otherwise designate their order as
Non-Attributable, and thereby not include their MPID with their
published quote on the EDGX Book Feed. As a result, the proposal will
provide Members additional visibility into the types of orders they may
interact with when an order is identified as a Retail Order. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would encourage
Members who wish to execute against Retail Orders to send additional
orders to the Exchange. For example, the Exchange conducted a study of
its execution data from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014, which
indicated that Members who represent Retail Orders and utilize
Attributable Orders to include their MPID with their published quote on
the EDGX Book Feed received an 18% higher execution rate than Members
who represent Retail Orders that elected not to include their MPID on
the EDGX Book Feed via the use of a Non-Attributable Order.\12\
Therefore, the Exchange believes the increased liquidity would
potentially stimulating further price competition for Retail Orders,
deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of
price discovery, and promoting market transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, under the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.'s
(``NYSE'') Retail Liquidity Program, when there is a Retail Price
Improvement Order in a particular security, the NYSE disseminates an
indicator, known as the Retail Liquidity Identifier. See NYSE Rule
107C(j). See also NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') Rule 107C(j); NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') Rule 7.44(j).
    \12\ The Exchange compared the execution rates of Attributed
Orders to Non-Attributed Orders submitted by Members whose primary
business is representing retail customers or who designate their
orders as Retail Orders for purposes of Footnote 4 of the Exchange's
Fee Schedule. The Exchange calculated the execution rate by dividing
the total executed quantity by the total order quantity for buy
orders with a limit price greater than or equal to the National Best
Bid (``NBB'') and less than National Best Offer (``NBO'') and sell
orders with limit price greater than the NBB and less than or equal
to the NBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
believes that the proposed amendment will not burden intramarket
competition because the ability to designate Retail Orders to be
identified as Retail on the EDGX Book Feed, rather than by their MPID,
would be open to all Members that wish to send Retail Orders to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would increase
intermarket competition by identifying orders as Retail via the EDGX
Book Feed would enable the Exchange to better compete with other
exchanges that offer similar

retail order programs.\13\ The Exchange believes that the amendment, by
increasing the amount of disseminated information regarding Retail
Orders, will increase the level of competition around retail executions
resulting in better prices for retail investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate 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 or disapprove 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2014-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2014-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2014-13, and should be
submitted on or before May 21, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09809 Filed 4-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 60959]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25190]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65396; File No. SR-MSRB-2011-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed New Rule A-11, on Municipal
Advisor Assessments, and New Form A-11-Interim

September 26, 2011.
    On July 26, 2011, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the
``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
consisting of (i) proposed new Rule A-11, on municipal advisor
assessments, and (ii) new Form A-11-Interim. Notice of the proposed
rule change was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2011.\3\
The Commission received four comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65015 (August 2,
2011), 76 FR 48197.
    \4\ See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Colette J. Irwin-Knott, CIPFA, President, National Association
of Independent Public Finance Advisors, dated September 6, 2011;
Michael Nicholas, CEO, Bond Dealers of America, dated August 29,
2011; and Michael Decker, Managing Director and Co-Head of Municipal
Securities, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association,
dated August 29, 2011; and letter from Joy A. Howard, Principal, WM
Financial Strategies, dated August 26, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 9, 2011, the MSRB withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-MSRB-2011-08).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See MSRB Notice 2011-51 (September 12, 2011).
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25190 Filed 9-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19752-19753]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07375]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-12-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review of the Leach Xpress Project Amendment

    On November 6, 2019, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gas)
filed

an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to amend the
existing Order Issuing Certificates and Approving Abandonment issued on
January 19, 2017 (Order) for the Leach XPress Project (LXP) in Docket
No. CP15-514-000. In the LXP Amendment, Columbia Gas proposes to modify
its operation of the Ceredo Compressor Station authorized in the Order
and requests modifying the Order noise level requirement for the Ceredo
and Crawford Compressor Stations. The proposed LXP Amendment would
allow Columbia Gas to operate the Ceredo and Crawford Compressor
Stations under the modified full load scenario, and ensure that the
noise level requirement associated with the compressor stations would
be consistent with the Commission's policy.
    On November 19, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC or Commission) issued its Notice of Application for the LXP
Amendment. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing
federal authorization of the requirement to complete all necessary
reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal
authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the
Commission's staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the LXP
Amendment. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned
schedule for completion of an EA for the LXP Amendment.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--May 7, 2020
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--August 5, 2020

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the LXP
Amendment's progress.

Project Description

    Columbia Gas is proposing to modify its operation of the Ceredo
Compressor Station authorized in the Order to reduce operational noise
levels on noise sensitive areas by: (1) Modifying the full-load
operation of the Ceredo Compressor Station to limit the use of the
seven existing legacy reciprocating units operating prior to the LXP
Order to four units at a given time; and (2) allowing for the use of
additional horsepower (hp) at the Ceredo Compressor Station that is
available from existing electric-driven compressor units installed
since issuance of the LXP Order. Columbia Gas also requests amending
the Order noise level requirement for the Ceredo and Crawford
Compressor Stations to conform to the Commission staff recommended
environmental condition 31 in the September 2016 final Environmental
Impact Statement for the LXP rather than environmental condition 31 of
the Order.

Background

    On February 26, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Leach XPress
Project Amendment and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
(NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and
local government agencies; elected officials; other interested parties;
and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the
Commission received one comment letter from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency raising issues including: Expected noise impacts and
existing and potential alternative noise mitigation applicable to noise
sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the compressor stations; and
clarification of what facility modifications Columbia Gas carried out
at the compressor stations under the LXP Order. All substantive
comments received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be
addressed in the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the LXP Amendment is available from
the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP20-12), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to
eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY (202) 502-
8659, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC
website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: April 1, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07375 Filed 4-7-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 122 (Monday, June 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38254-38256]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0106; Notice 2]

Daimler Vans USA, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of petition denial.

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

SUMMARY: Daimler Vans USA, LLC, (Daimler Vans) on behalf of Daimler AG,
has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-2018 Mercedes-Benz
Metris vans do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/
Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor
Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less.
Daimler Vans filed a noncompliance report dated October 24, 2018, and
later amended it on November 9, 2018. Daimler Vans also petitioned
NHTSA on November 9, 2018, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This document announces and explains the denial of Daimler Vans'
petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366-7236.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Daimler Vans has determined that certain MY 2016-2018
Mercedes-Benz Metris vans do not fully comply with paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>
of FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation
Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles
with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less (49 CFR
571.110). Daimler Vans filed a noncompliance report dated October 24,
2018, and later amended it on November 9, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Daimler Vans
also petitioned NHTSA on November 9, 2018, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Daimler Vans' petition was published with a
30-day public comment period, on September 16, 2019, in the Federal
Register (84 FR 48702). No comments were received. To view the petition
and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2018-0106.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 24,438 MY 2016-2018 Mercedes
Benz-Metris vans, manufactured between June 1, 2016, and September 28,
2018, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Manufacturers are permitted to install
passenger car tires on a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), truck,
bus, or trailer. However, when passenger car tires are used in one of
these other light vehicle applications, paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No.
110, provides that each tire's maximum load rating is to be reduced by
dividing it by a factor of 1.10 before the manufacturer determines the
maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to each axle. For the equipped
tires on the Daimler Vans, the pre S<IP_ADDRESS> adjustment tire
specifications (based on a tire load rating with a load index of 101)
yields a load capacity of 825 kg (1,818 pounds) per tire and 1,650 kg
(3,637 pounds) per axle. Specifically, the subject vehicles were
certified with a maximum load rating of 775 kg (1,708 pounds) per tire
or 1,550 kg (3,417 pounds) combined per axle. However, after dividing
each tire specification tire capacity value by 1.1 and thereby reducing
the maximum load rating, the tires on the subject vehicles have an
adjusted maximum load rating of 750 kg (1,653pounds) per tire and 1,500
kg (3,307 pounds) per axle--values below the certified GAWR (Gross Axle
Weight Rating) for the front and rear axles.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS
No. 110 include the requirements relevant to this petition. Section
S<IP_ADDRESS> requires the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires
fitted to an axle shall not be less than the GAWR of the axle system as
specified on the vehicle's certification label required by 49 CFR part
567. Section S<IP_ADDRESS>, further requires that when passenger car tires
are installed on an MPV, truck, bus, or trailer, each tire's load
rating is reduced by dividing it by 1.10 before determining, under
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>, the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires
fitted to an axle.
    V. Summary of Daimler Van's Petition: The following views and
arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Daimler Vans'
Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by Daimler Vans and do
not reflect the views of the Agency. In its petition, Daimler Vans
describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety for the
following reasons:
    1. There is no safety risk posed with this noncompliance because
the tires are designed to carry significantly more than the GAWR listed
on the certification label.

    2. The Metris vans also have installed the same tire size as the
Metris vans sold in Europe that have the same axle weight ratings and
those vehicles have performed without incident for years.
    3. Despite the discrepancy in calculating the maximum load rating,
the Metris vans are more than able to accommodate additional weight
loaded onto the vehicle. Per the specifications provided by the tire
supplier, based on the tire's load index rating of 101, each tire, in
fact, has a maximum load rating of 825 kg (1,818 pounds) per tire and a
combined maximum load rating of 1,650 kg (3,637 pounds) per axle. Thus,
the tires were designed and manufactured to safely and effectively
manage weights that are well beyond the GAWR for each axle.
    4. The GAWR listed on the vehicle certification label is accurate
so that a consumer relying on and following the values for the front
and rear GAWR, for purposes of vehicle loading, would not be at risk of
overloading the axles.
    5. The tires on the Metris vans have a payload reserve of 6.5
percent at a load of 1,550 kg per axle, which is slightly below the
payload reserve of 10 percent specified by FMVSS No. 110. Moreover, the
tire pressure specified for each tire on the Metris Van is at least 11%
higher (tire pressure reserve) then the ETRTO (European Tyre and Rim
Technical Organisation) recommended tire pressure. This tire pressure
reserve reduces the stress on the tire, due to reduced deflection of
the tire under load.
    6. Further, the Metris vans are equipped with a standard tire
pressure monitoring system (TPMS) that is compliant with FMVSS No. 138.
Depending on the severity of the loss of tire pressure, the Metris vans
display one of three specialized TPMS warnings in the instrument panel
advising the operator of the loss of pressure and how quickly the
operator should take corrective action. If the tires were to experience
a loss of tire pressure, the driver would be alerted to this condition
and could take appropriate measures. Thus, if there were to be a loss
of tire pressure, consistent with the standard, the TPMS system would
warn the operator.
    7. After identifying the discrepancy in the values listed on the
tire and loading information placard, Daimler Vans reviewed what, if
any, impact there could be on various vehicle systems that could
potentially be affected by the discrepancy. This review considered the
effect on steering, braking, axle strength, and crashworthiness if the
operator loaded the vehicle to the maximum amount listed on the tire
and loading information placard. As a result of the review, Daimler
Vans was able to confirm that the discrepancy will not adversely impact
any of these systems or otherwise diminish the performance or
crashworthiness of the Metris vans.
    8. Daimler Vans states that it is not aware of any consumer
complaints or reports of accidents or injuries related to overloading
the vehicles that could reasonably be related to not derating the
reinforced passenger car tires prior to certification. In addition,
Metris vans sold in Europe are equipped with tires that are the same
size and the vehicles have the same axle weight ratings. The European
vehicles have similarly performed without incident.
    9. The Agency has previously granted petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance involving similar inconsistencies involving tire maximum
load ratings. In 2017, the Agency granted a petition for
inconsequential noncompliance where a manufacturer had incorrectly
overstated the maximum occupant and cargo weight on the tire and
loading information placard, by a total of 30 kg. Although on its face,
this discrepancy would have appeared to have led consumers to
potentially overload the vehicle, the Agency concluded that when the
vehicle was loaded to the value listed on the placard, the specific
tires installed on the vehicles were nonetheless technically capable of
handling the overstated weight and cargo. In this instance, for one
vehicle variation, the maximum loads were below the GAWR and gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and for another vehicle variation, the
maximum loads were ``essentially at the certified GAWR and GVWR
values.'' The Agency concluded that the tires were ``more than
adequate'' to manage the additional vehicle and cargo weight and that
the vehicles could safely manage the additional weight without overload
concerns. See 82 FR 33547 (July 20, 2017) (Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC).
    10. The noncompliance at issue here is similar to the above
petition. In this case, there is also little concern of vehicle
overloading because the specifications for the tires installed on the
Metris vans are technically capable of managing the additional weight
even without the reinforced passenger car tires having been derated.
    Daimler Vans concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    Daimler Vans' complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at https://www.regulations.gov and following the online search
instructions to locate the docket number listed in the title of this
notice.
    VI. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in a standard--as opposed to a labeling requirement--is
more substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\2\ NHTSA also does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \3\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \3\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \4\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intent of FMVSS No. 110 is to ensure that vehicles are equipped
with tires appropriate to handle maximum vehicle loads and prevent
overloading.

Daimler Vans explains that due to an oversight, a 1.10 reduction on
each tire's maximum load rating was not applied before the overall
maximum load rating of the tires for each axle was set. As a result,
the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to each axle
(after being divided by 1.10) are less than the GAWR for the axle as
specified on the vehicle certification label by 110 lbs. The 1.10
factor reduction due to the use of passenger tires on a van-truck,
results effectively in the tires, per FMVSS 110 S<IP_ADDRESS>, falling short
of covering the vehicle's GAWR which results in a 96.8% coverage rate
(3307 lbs/3417 lbs) of covering the vehicle's GAWR.
    Daimler Vans additionally notated that the Agency has previously
granted petitions for inconsequential noncompliance involving similar
inconsistencies involving tire maximum load ratings. The referenced
granted petition involves passenger vehicles where the vehicle
manufacturer had incorrectly overstated the maximum occupant and cargo
weight on the Tire and Loading Information Label. In short, the Agency
concluded that when the vehicle was loaded to the value listed on the
placard, the specific tires installed on the vehicles were nonetheless
technically capable of handling the overstated weight and cargo. It
should, however, be noted that in the ``similar granted petition,'' the
maximum load values were either at or below the GAWR/GVWR for the
subject vehicles.
    VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing analysis,
NHTSA finds that Daimler Vans has not met its burden of persuasion that
the subject FMVSS No. 110 noncompliance at issue is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    Accordingly, Daimler Vans' petition is hereby denied and Daimler
Vans is consequently obligated of providing notification of, and a free
remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-13598 Filed 6-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 121 (Monday, June 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41397-41398]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13525]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-02-2023-2024; FRL-11050-01-R2]

Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement for the Marko Engraving
& Art Corp. Site, Located at 429-439 Fairview Avenue, Fairview, New
Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''),

notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA''), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement
(``Settlement'') pursuant to CERCLA with Ljubow Melnitschenko
(``Settling Party'') for the Marko Engraving & Art Corp. Site
(``Site''), located at 429-439 Fairview Avenue, Fairview, New Jersey.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at the following website: https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/02/677072. Requests for copies of the proposed Settlement and submission
of comments must be via electronic mail to Olga Pappas at
[email protected]. Comments should reference the Marko Engraving &
Art Corp. Site, Index No. CERCLA-02-2023-2024. For those unable to
communicate via electronic mail, please contact Olga Pappas at the
telephone number identified below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga Pappas, Assistant Regional
Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. Email:
[email protected]. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the proposed Settlement, Settling
Party will pay $225,000 to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund to
resolve her potential liability for EPA's past response costs paid in
connection with the Site. Payment is to be made upon Settling Party
selling three properties. Settling Party will pay EPA from the proceeds
of the sales. In exchange for Settling Party's payment, the Settlement
provides a covenant not to sue or take administrative action against
Settling Party, and will release the Federal lien on the Site property
arising under section 107(l) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(l).
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the proposed
Settlement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or
withdraw its consent to the proposed Settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed
Settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to
any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA
Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.

Pasquale Evangelista,
Director, Superfund & Emergency Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2023-13525 Filed 6-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 11014]
[DOCID:fr12mr07-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-272-063]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate

March 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 28, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets proposed to be
effective on March 1, 2007:

47 Revised Sheet No. 66
39 Revised Sheet No. 66A
Original Sheet No. 66B.01

    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed
to each of its customers and interested state commissions.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not 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 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4359 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P