[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 562-566]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28438]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82416; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2017-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Market Data Fees

December 28, 2017.
    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 December 15, 2017, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the Market Data section of
its fee schedule to lower the Internal Distribution fees and to adopt
per User fees for the Cboe One Summary Feed.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data section of its fee
schedule to lower the fee for Internal Distribution and to adopt
separate fees for Professional \5\ and Non-Professional Users \6\ for
the Cboe One Summary Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``Professional User'' is defined as ``any User other than
a Non-Professional User.'' See the Exchange's fee schedule available
at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/.
    \6\ A ``Non-Professional User'' is currently defined as ``a
natural person who is not: (i) Registered or qualified in any
capacity with the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or
association, or any commodities or futures contract market or
association; (ii) engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term
is defined in Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 (whether or not registered or qualified under that Act); or
(iii) employed by a bank or other organization exempt from
registration under federal or state securities laws to perform
functions that would require registration or qualification if such
functions were performed for an organization not so exempt.'' Id.
See SR-CboeBYX-2017-003 (filed December 15, 2017) (amending the
definition of Non-Professional User to harmonize it with that of its
affiliate exchanges, Cboe Exchange, Inc. and C2 Exchange, Inc. as of
January 2, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Cboe One Feed is an optional data feed that disseminates, on a
real-time basis, the aggregate best bid and offer (``BBO'') of all
displayed orders for securities traded on BYX and its affiliated
exchanges \7\ and for which they report quotes under the Consolidated
Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.\8\ The Cboe One
Feed also contains the individual last sale information for the Cboe
Equity Exchanges (collectively with the aggregate BBO, the ``Cboe One
Summary Feed''). In addition, the Cboe One Feed contains optional
functionality which enables recipients to receive aggregated two-sided
quotations from the Cboe Equity Exchanges for up to five (5) price
levels (``Cboe One Premium Feed'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ BYX's affiliated exchanges are Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA''), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), and Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'', together with EDGX, EDGA, and BYX, the
``Cboe Equity Exchanges'').
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 11.22(j). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 73918 (December 23, 2014), 79 FR 78920 (December 31,
2014) (File Nos. SR-EDGX-2014-25; SR-EDGA-2014-25; SR-BATS-2014-055;
SR-BYX-2014-030) (Notice of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to Establish a New Market Data Product
called the Cboe One Feed) (``Cboe One Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to lower the fee
for Internal Distribution for the Cboe One Summary Feed and to adopt
separate fees for Professional and Non-Professional Users.\9\ The
Exchange does not propose to amend the fees for the Cboe One Premium
Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive, immaterial
change to the fee table headings to conform to other heading within
the Market Data Section of the fee schedule. In particular, the
Exchange proposes to change the term ``Distributor'' to
``Distribution'' in both the Internal Distributor and External
Distributor headings under the Cboe One Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Distribution Fees. Currently, each Internal Distributor that
receives the Cboe One Summary Feed is charged a fee of $10,000 per
month. The Exchange now proposes to lower the fee for Internal
Distribution to $1,500 per month.
    User Fees. Like it does today for External Distributors, the
Exchange proposes to adopt per User fees for Internal Distributors that
receive the Cboe One Summary Feed. The Exchange currently charges
External Distributors that redistribute the Cboe One Summary Feed
different fees for their Professional Users and Non-Professional Users.
Those fees are $10.00 per month for each Professional Users and $0.25
per month for each Non-Professional Users. To date, the Exchange has
not charged per User fees to Internal Distributors for the Cboe One
Summary Feed. To offset the proposed reduction to the monthly Internal
Distribution fee, the Exchange proposes to adopt per User fees for
Internal Distribution, the amounts of each fee would be the same as the
per User fees currently charged to External Distributors described
above.
    The Exchange also proposes to extend the current $50,000 per month
Enterprise Fee available to External Distributors of the Cboe One
Summary Feed to Internal Distributors. In lieu of per User fees, the
Enterprise fee will permit Internal Distributors who redistribute the
Cboe One Summary Feed to an unlimited number of internal Professional
and Non-Professional Users for a set fee of $50,000 per month. For
example, if an Internal Distributor had 15,000 Professional Users who
each receive the Cboe One Summary Feed at $10.00 per month, then that
Internal Distributor will pay $150,000 per month in Professional Users
fees. Under the proposed Enterprise Fee, the Internal Distributor will
pay a flat fee of $50,000 for an unlimited number of internal
Professional and Non-Professional Users of the Cboe One Summary Feed.
An Internal Distributor that pays the Enterprise Fee will not have to
report its number of such Users (as set forth below) on a monthly
basis. However, every six months, an Internal Distributor must provide
the Exchange with a count of the total number of natural person users
of each product, including both Professional and Non-Professional
Users. Like for External Distributors, the Enterprise Fee for Internal
Distributors would be in addition to the applicable Distribution Fee.
    Like External Distributors of the Cboe One Summary Feed, Internal
Distributors that receive the Cboe One Summary Feed will be required to
count every Professional User and Non-Professional User to which they
provide the Cboe One Summary Feed, the requirements for which are
identical to that currently in place for External Distributors of the
Cboe One Summary Feed and other market data products offered by the
Exchange.\10\ Thus, the Internal Distributor's count will include every
person and device that accesses the data regardless of the purpose for
which the individual or device uses the data. Internal Distributors
must report all Professional and Non-Professional Users in accordance
with the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74284 (February
18, 2015); 80 FR 9792 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-09)
(proposing fees for the Cboe One Feed); 75407 (July 9, 2015), 80 FR
41532 (July 15, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-30) (proposing user fees for the
BYX Top and Last Sale data feeds); and 75786 (August 28, 2015), 80
FR 53353 (September 3, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-36) (proposing fees for
BYX Book Viewer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In connection with an Internal Distributor's distribution
of the Cboe One Summary Feed, the Internal Distributor must count as
one User each unique User that the Internal Distributor has entitled to
have access to the Cboe One Summary Feed. However, where a device is
dedicated specifically to a single individual, the Internal Distributor
must count only the individual and need not count the device.
     The Internal Distributor must identify and report each
unique User. If a User uses the same unique method to gain access to
the Cboe One Summary Feed, the Internal Distributor must count that as
one User. However, if a unique User uses multiple methods to gain
access to the Cboe One Summary Feed (e.g., a single User has multiple
passwords and user identifications), the Internal Distributor must
report each of those methods as an individual User.
     Internal Distributors must report each unique individual
person who receives access through multiple devices as one User so long
as each device is dedicated specifically to that individual.

     If an Internal Distributor entitles one or more
individuals to use the same device, the Distributor must include only
the individuals, and not the device, in the count.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange intends to implement the proposed fees on January 2,
2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\12\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other recipients of
Exchange data. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
recipients of Exchange data. The Exchange believes the proposed fees
are competitive with those charged by other venues and, therefore,
reasonable and equitably allocated to recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 11(A) of the Act \13\ in that it supports (i) fair
competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of
Regulation NMS,\14\ which provides that any national securities
exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably
discriminatory. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted
self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority
and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It
was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data
available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for
the provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair
discrimination because all of the Exchange's customers and market data
vendors who subscribe to the Cboe One Summary Feed will be subject to
the proposed fees. The Cboe One Summary Feed is distributed and
purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market
data distributors are required by any rule or regulation purchase this
data or to make this data available. Accordingly, Distributors and
Users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due
to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Firms have a
wide variety of alternative market data products from which to choose,
such as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges
and consolidated data. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make
any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific
pricing alternatives to any customers.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's
Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to
the Cboe One Summary Feed further ensure that the Exchange cannot set
unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when
vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives. That is, the
Exchange competes with other exchanges (and their affiliates) that
provide similar market data products. For example, the Cboe One Summary
Feed provides investors with alternative market data and competes with
similar market data product currently offered by other exchanges. If
another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to distribute
its similar product than the Exchange charges to create the Cboe One
Summary Feed, prospective Users likely would not subscribe to, or would
cease subscribing to either market data product.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake
a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that,
even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based
pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could
not be done practically.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including the Commission, to cost-regulate a large
number of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary
amounts of information, accounts, and reports. In addition, it is
impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation from prices
charged by markets for other services that are joint products. Cost-
based rate regulation would also lead to litigation and may distort
incentives, including those to minimize costs and to innovate,
leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the Commission
would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return, and the
industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's website at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73816 (December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75200
(December 17, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-64) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Establish an
Access Fee for the NYSE Best Quote and Trades Data Feed, Operative
December 1, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that lowering the Internal Distribution fee
for the Cboe One Summary Feed is equitable and reasonable because the
lower fee coupled with the adoption of per User fees is designed to
provide a price structure for Internal Distributors that is competitive
and attracts additional subscribers to each market data feed. The
Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to charge a lower fee to
Internal Distributors than External Distributors because External
Distributors redistribute the data to their subscribers for a fee while
Internal Distributors do not.
    The Exchange believes that implementing the Professional and Non-
Professional User fees for the Cboe One Summary Feed are equitable and
reasonable because they will result in greater availability to
Professional and Non-Professional Users. The addition of per User fees
also enables the fee for Internal Distribution, thereby lowering their
overall costs where the number of Users they account for is low.
Moreover, introducing a modest Non-Professional User fee is reasonable
because it provides an additional method for Non-Professional investors
to access the data by providing the same data that is available to
Professional Users. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will be charged
uniformly to Internal Distributors and Users. The Exchange notes that
the amount of the per User fees for Internal Distribution equal those
charged for External Distribution for the Cboe One Summary Feed.
    The fee structure of differentiated Professional and Non-
Professional fees is utilized by the Exchange for the Cboe One Feed and
has long been used by other exchanges for their proprietary data
products, and by the Nasdaq UTP and the CTA and CQ Plans in order to
reduce the price of data to retail investors and make it more broadly

available.\16\ Offering the Cboe One Summary Feed to Non-Professional
Users with the same data available to Professional Users results in
greater equity among data recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74285 (February
18, 2015), 80 FR 9828 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-11); 74283
(February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9809 (February 24, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-
09); 74282 (February 17, 2015), 80 FR 9487 (February 23, 2015) (SR-
EDGX-2015-09); and 74284 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9792 (February
24, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-09) (``Initial Cboe One Feed Fee Filings'').
See also, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20002, File No.
S7-433 (July 22, 1983) (establishing nonprofessional fees for CTA
data); and Nasdaq Rules 7023(b) and 7047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed expansion of the Enterprise Fee to Internal
Distributors of the Cboe One Summary Feed is reasonable because it
could result in a fee reduction for Internal Distributors with a large
number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. If an Internal
Distributor has a smaller number of Professional Users of the Cboe One
Summary Feed, then it may continue using the per User structure. By
reducing prices for Internal Distributors with a large number of
Professional and Non-Professional Users, the Exchange believes that
more Internal Distributors may choose to receive and to distribute the
Cboe One Summary Feed, thereby expanding the distribution of this
market data for the benefit of investors.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed Enterprise Fee is
reasonable because it will simplify reporting for certain Internal
Distributors that have large numbers of Professional and Non-
Professional Users. Internal Distributors that pay the proposed
Enterprise Fee will not have to report the number of Users on a monthly
basis as they currently do, but rather will only have to count natural
person users every six months, which is a significant reduction in
administrative burden. Finally, the Exchange believes that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to establish an Enterprise
Fee because it reduces the Exchange's costs and the Distributor's
administrative burdens in tracking and auditing large numbers of Users.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange's ability to price the Cboe One Summary Feed is constrained
by: (i) Competition among exchanges, other trading platforms, and Trade
Reporting Facilities (``TRF'') that compete with each other in a
variety of dimensions; (ii) the existence of inexpensive real-time
consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed data; and
(iii) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary data.
    The Exchange and its market data products are subject to
significant competitive forces and the proposed fees represent
responses to that competition. To start, the Exchange competes
intensely for order flow. It competes with the other national
securities exchanges that currently trade equities, with electronic
communication networks, with quotes posted in FINRA's Alternative
Display Facility, with alternative trading systems, and with securities
firms that primarily trade as principal with their customer order flow.
The Cboe One Summary Feed will enhance competition because it not only
provides content that is competitive with the similar products offered
by other exchanges, but will provide pricing that is competitive as
well. The Cboe One Summary Feed provides investors with an alternative
option for receiving market data and competes directly with similar
market data products currently offered by the NYSE and Nasdaq.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Nasdaq Basic, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=nasdaqbasic (data feed offering the BBO and Last Sale
information for all U.S. exchange-listed securities based on
liquidity within the Nasdaq market center, as well as trades
reported to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility
(``TRF''));Nasdaq NLS Plus, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=NLSplus (data feed providing last sale data as well
as consolidated volume from the following Nasdaq OMX markets for
U.S. exchange-listed securities: Nasdaq, FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, Nasdaq
OMX BX, and Nasdaq OMX PSX); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
73553 (November 6, 2014), 79 FR 67491 (November 13, 2014) (SR-NYSE-
2014-40) (Notice of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.1,
To Establish the NYSE Best Quote & Trades (``BQT'') Data Feed);
https://www.nyse.com/market-data/real-time/nyse-bqt (data feed
providing unified view of BBO and last sale information for the
NYSE, NYSE Arca, and NYSE MKT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, when establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange
considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and
all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that
it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered
irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees
among all Users. The existence of alternatives to the Cboe One Summary
Feed ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees
that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can
elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific
proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by
the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through
the purchase.
    Lastly, the Exchange represents that the proposed pricing of the
Cboe One Summary Feed provides investors with alternative market data
and competes with similar market data product currently offered by
other exchanges.\18\ In addition, the Exchange notes the concerns
regarding whether a competing vendor could create a similar product on
the same price basis as the Exchange are not present here. The proposed
changes are limited to fees for Internal Distributers who use the data
for internal use only and not for the redistribution and sale to
external parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\20\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBYX-2017-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBYX-2017-004. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBYX-2017-004 and should be submitted
on or before January 25, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28438 Filed 1-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63104-63105]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21755]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0042; FRL-9952-09-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan for
Lamar

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Colorado.
On May 13, 2013, the Governor of Colorado's designee submitted to the
EPA a revised maintenance plan for the Lamar area for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns
(PM10). The EPA is approving the revised maintenance plan
with the exception of one aspect of the plan's contingency measures.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0042. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, 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 the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Lamar area was designated nonattainment for PM10 and
classified as moderate by operation of law upon enactment of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR 56694, 56705, 56736
(November 6, 1991). EPA approved Colorado's nonattainment area SIP for
the Lamar PM10 nonattainment area on June 9, 1994 (59 FR
29732).
    On May 13, 2013, the Governor of Colorado's designee submitted the
second 10-year update of the PM10 maintenance plan for the
Lamar area to the EPA. On June 1, 2016, the EPA published a proposed
rulemaking in which we proposed to approve the 10-year update because
it demonstrates continued maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS
through 2025.

II. Response to Comments

    We received one comment letter during the public comment period,
which was submitted anonymously.
    Comment: Given the high number of high wind occurrences, and given
the consistently windy nature of the Lamar area, the EPA cannot rely on
the Exceptional Events Rule (EER) to ignore PM10
exceedances. In doing so, the EPA is failing to provide environmental
justice for people in rural areas, by failing to provide them with
clean air.
    Response: 55 exceedances between two monitors over the course of 14
years were reported by the City of Lamar. The EPA notes that high wind
events do not have to be rare to be considered an exceptional event.
Quoting from the ``Interim Guidance on the Preparation of
Demonstrations in Support of Requests to Exclude Ambient Air Quality
Data Affected by High Winds Under the Exceptional Events Rule,'' U.S.
EPA May 2013 page 20, it states,

    The EPA will use a weight-of-evidence approach to assess each
demonstration and comparison of the concentrations during event(s)
in question with historical concentration data on a case-by-case
basis. The EPA acknowledges that natural events, such as high wind
dust events, can recur and still be eligible for exclusion under the
EER. Therefore, events do not necessarily have to be rare to satisfy
this element.

Of the 34 out of 55 flagged PM10 high wind monitored values,
which the EPA has concurred with, each event has met the criteria set
forth under the EER. Having satisfied these requirements, and having
obtained concurrence from the EPA, we find that the exclusion of these
data from regulatory decisions is appropriate. Additionally, the EPA's
review and concurrence with the 34 of 55 flagged PM10 high
wind monitored values is consistent with the EER, and such analysis is
applied uniformly throughout the state.

III. Final Action

    We are approving the revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan
that was submitted to us on May 13, 2013, with one exception. We are
not acting on the submitted update to the Natural Events Action Plan
(NEAP), as the NEAP is not part of the SIP. We are approving the
remainder of the revised maintenance plan because it demonstrates
maintenance through 2025 as required by CAA section 175A(b), retains
the control measures from the initial PM10 maintenance plan
that the EPA approved on October 25, 2005, and meets other CAA
requirements for a section 175A maintenance plan. We are excluding from
use in determining that Lamar continues to attain the PM10
NAAQS, exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS that were recorded at
the Lamar Power Plant PM10 monitor on February 9, 2002;
March 7, 2002; May 21, 2002; June 20, 2002; April 5, 2002; May 22,
2008; January 19, 2009; April 3, 2011; and November 5, 2011, because
the exceedances meet the criteria for exceptional events caused by high
wind natural events.
    Additionally, the EPA is proposing to exclude from use in
determining that Lamar continues to attain the PM10 NAAQS,
exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS that were recorded at the
Municipal Complex PM10 monitor on May 21, 2002; June 20,
2002; April 5, 2005; January 19, 2009; February 8, 2013; March 18,
2012; April 2, 2012; April 9, 2013; May 1, 2013; May 24, 2013; May 25,
2013; May 28, 2013; December 24, 2013; February 16, 2014; March 11,
2014; March 15, 2014; March 18, 2014; March 29, 2014; March 30, 2014;
March 31, 2014; April 23, 2014; April 29, 2014; November 10, 2014;
April 1, 2015; and April 2, 2015, because the exceedances meet the
criteria for exceptional events caused by high wind natural events. We
are also approving the revised maintenance plan's 2025 transportation
conformity motor vehicle emission budget for PM10 of 764
lbs/day.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. See 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, these actions merely approve state law as meeting
federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For this reason, these actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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).
    In addition, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian Country, the
final rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 14, 2016. 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 CAA section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 26, 2016.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-21755 Filed 9-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on July 28, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN –

DOCKET OST-2005-21875

________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of  Continental Airlines, Inc.  filed   07/14/05 for:

XX Exemption for two years pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between Houston and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic.  Continental also
requests the authority to integrate its exemption here with all of
Continental’s other existing certificate and exemption authority, to
the extent permitted by bilateral agreements.

No answers to the application were filed.

Applicant rep: R. Bruce Keiner<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:  Michael D.
Bodman<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (See remarks/conditions below).

The above action was effective when taken:  July 28, 2005, through July
28, 2007.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the overall state of
aviation relations between the United States and the Dominican Republic.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

Remarks:  We acted on this application prior to the expiration date for
answers with the consent of all parties served.

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority should be construed as conferring
upon the holder rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or
beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited
unless the holder notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a
market and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary
carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be
authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by
any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in
the holder’s authority by virtue of the route integration exemption
granted here, but that are not then being used by the holder, the
holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for the holder in a competitive carrier
selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to
use the authority at issue.

_________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a
major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier

Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 212 (Monday, November 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69375-69376]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24286]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday,
November 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
www.sec.gov.

STATUS: This meeting will begin at 2:00 p.m. (ET) and will be open to
the public via audio webcast only on the Commission's website at
www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. The Commission will consider whether to issue a Notice, pursuant
to Exchange Act Rule 0-13, seeking public comment on an application
made by a foreign financial regulatory authority, pursuant to Exchange
Act Rule 3a71-6, for a substituted compliance determination, and on a
proposed order providing for the conditional availability of
substituted compliance in connection with the application.
    2. The Commission will consider whether to issue an order granting
exemptive relief from Sections 8 and 15(a)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 3b-13(b)(2), 8c-1, 10b-10, 15a-1 and
15c2-1 thereunder in connection with the revision of the definition of
``security'' to encompass

security-based swaps; declining to extend exemptive relief from Rules
10b-16 and 15c2-5; and determining the expiration date for a temporary
exemption from Section 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with registration of security-based swap dealers and major
security-based swap participants.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman, Office of the Secretary, at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: October 28, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24286 Filed 10-29-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                  Supporting Statement for EPA ICR [2470.01]
Part A.
   1.  Identification of the Information Collection
1(a) Title:
Technical Assistance Needs Assessments (TANAs) at Superfund Remedial or Removal Sites (NEW), EPA ICR [2470.01], OMB Control Number 2050-NEW.

1(b) Abstract:
ICR [2470.01] addresses Federally-conducted community involvement for remedial activities at sites on the National Priority List (Superfund sites) or for removal actions lasting 120 days or longer. This ICR covers specifically the usage of TANAs with members of the impacted community in order to determine how the community is receiving technical information about a site; whether the community needs additional assistance in order to understand and respond to site-related technical information; and whether there are organizations in the community that are interested or involved in site related issues and capable of acting as an appropriate conduit for technical assistance services to the affected community. The TANA will help ensure the community's needs for technical assistance are defined as early in the remedial/ removal process as possible and enable meaningful community involvement in the Superfund decision-making process. Additionally, the TANA process produces a blueprint for designing a coordinated effort to meet the community's needs for additional technical assistance while minimizing the overlap of services provided.

   2. Need for and Use of the Information Collection

2(a) Need/ Authority for Collection:

TANAs are not required by statute or regulation, however, they are strongly recommended whenever an impacted community may require additional technical assistance. EPA believes involvement of the members of the community surrounding a Superfund site is critical to ensuring effective site cleanups.

What information will be collected?
The TANA will identify unaddressed technical assistance needs relating to the remedial/ removal activities occurring at a given site, including non-advocacy information assistance and expertise; community education needs; organizational capacity-building assistance; and mediation or conflict resolution services.

From whom will the information be collected?
When the TANA is being conducted concurrently with the Community Involvement Plan (CIP) community interviews, the Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC) should identify interviewees by using the Community Interviews tool and conduct the TANA interviews with a smaller number of individuals who can help define the community's specific needs. TANA interviewees may include state and local government officials, a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) representative (if applicable), and community members who have expressed a specific interest in, or knowledge of, the community's technical assistance needs (including but not limited to those participating in the site's Technical Assistance Grant (TAG), Community Advisory Group (CAG), or Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC)). The CIC should make every effort to ensure all affected stakeholder groups are represented in the TANA interviews and give a voice to those who have not had the opportunity to fully engage in the Superfund cleanup process.

If the TANA is being conducted after the CIP community interviews have been completed, the CIC may select interviewees from those participating in the original community interviews and include others who may be able to define the community's potential technical assistance needs. Given the specific nature of the TANA, eight to ten persons will be interviewed. If the TANA is conducted concurrently with the CIP community interviews, this number may be greater. The interviews will be targeted towards those individuals requesting additional support on technical issues (e.g., inquiring about site documents to review.)

How will the information be collected?
The interviews associated with the TANA may be one of the first opportunities the EPA has to engage with community members one-on-one. Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) are required to accompany the CIC to learn firsthand about the community member's concerns. It is strongly suggested that EPA employees conduct the TANA interviews. Whenever a contractor conducts the TANA interviews, EPA personnel will be present. The interviewer will ask each stakeholder a series of questions, with the responses being documented. The stakeholder interview process should incorporate additional questions or request supplemental information as needed. The TANA interviews may be conducted either in-person or over the phone.

CICs can use contractor support to prepare for and conduct the TANA.  The contractor support will be utilized judiciously and may be useful for documenting the interviews and summarizing notes from individual interviews. The CIC usually is responsible for summarizing the interviews into a final TANA summary (succinct, 4-6 page document).

How frequently will the information be collected?
The TANA can be conducted concurrently with the initial Community Interviews administered for development of a CIP or at a later date if the technical assistance needs of the community cannot be adequately defined by community members at that time. Conducting the TANA concurrently with the CIP community interviews can help minimize EPA staff time, defray costs and reduce the administrative/ time burden placed on community members.  The CIC can conduct a TANA at any time during the Superfund remedial process if it becomes evident that the technical assistance needs of the community are not being effectively addressed through existing technical assistance mechanisms. TANAs will only be conducted at sites where communities have unaddressed technical assistance needs and most frequently once during the remedial/ removal process.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data:

What will the information be used for?
A TANA will aid the CIC and the RPM or OSC in determining the technical assistance needs of a community affected by a given site. This assessment will provide the Agency with a detailed record of potentially unmet technical assistance needs and provide a working document from which the most appropriate forms of informal and formal technical assistance can be identified and provided to the community. One of the additional objectives for conducting a TANA is to avoid unnecessary duplication of technical assistance provided to a community through EPA funding vehicles and via university and nonprofit partners.

Will the information be shared with any other organizations inside or outside EPA?
The TANA will enhance opportunities for EPA to cooperate with other organizations (e.g., National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Superfund Research Program grantees, nonprofits providing capacity building assistance) with the shared goal of addressing a community's technical assistance needs.  If appropriate, the TANA summary document may be shared with universities and nonprofits currently enrolled in the Partners in Technical Assistance Program (PTAP). Upon receipt of the TANA summary document, any PTAP members interested in providing non-advocacy technical assistance will contact the CIC responsible for the TANA in order to determine if collaborative technical assistance services are possible.

   3. Non duplication, consultations, and other ICR criteria

3 (a) Non duplication:

There is no duplication as there are no other sources available to collect this information. In addition, the Community Interviews conducted for a CIP have been revised to incorporate questions in regards to whether a formal TANA should be conducted. Only those community members able to define the community's potential technical assistance needs will be interviewed. The generation of this technical assistance needs assessment was completed concurrently with a revision of the Community Interviews tool to ensure questions asked of community members were not duplicative.

3 (b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB:

The Paperwork Reduction Act requires that ICRs be made available to the public for comment prior to submission to OMB. This is done through two notices to the Federal Register. The first Federal Register Notice, which describes the ICR and provides numbers for burden hours and costs and solicits public comment, was published on __________. A 60 day comment period was given; ____ comments were received. The second Federal Register Notice will be published at the same time the ICR is submitted to OMB. This notice states that the ICR has been submitted and provides an abstract and final burden numbers.

3 (c) Consultations:

The TANA is a new tool not previously utilized by EPA community involvement staff and as such all burden and cost projections are estimates. These estimates are informed by specific consultation with subject matter experts in both EPA Headquarters and Regional offices. Burden and cost estimates were additionally confirmed through review of needs assessments conducted by EPA contractors with communities impacted by Superfund sites. Agency experience in addressing technical assistance for communities has included annual meetings with community involvement staff and meetings with local community organizations.

3 (d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection:

The TANA was written to specifically dovetail with interviews conducted to develop or revise a CIP.  Definitive questions have been added to the Community Interviews tool guiding the CIC to only conduct a formalized TANA when an impacted community has unaddressed technical assistance needs and those needs could not be effectively addressed through informal technical assistance provided directly by EPA staff (e.g., fact sheets, workshops, availability sessions, etc.) For the majority of sites, informal technical assistance will be sufficient to meet the needs of the community. Information collection through TANAs will be conducted the minimal amount necessary to ensure the technical assistance needs of impacted communities are appropriately assessed and addressed.

3 (e) General Guidelines:

The final TANA and resulting summary documents will be included in the official site file in the information repository. The site records are to be maintained for the duration of remedial responses at sites and for as long as necessary for litigation purposes. Responsibility for these files will continue beyond the three-year ICR period as cleanups typically take more than three years.

3 (f) Confidentiality:

The nature of the data being gathered as part of this information collection is not confidential. Lists of participants in community interviews and lists of attendees of public meetings are not confidential. Some data gathered during community interviews may not be releasable, however, due to privacy concerns.

3 (g) Sensitive Questions:

The information gathering activities discussed in this ICR generally do not involve any sensitive questions.

   4. Respondents and Information requested

4(a) Respondents/SIC Codes

Respondents to this ICR are local/ state government officials and individual community members who may be impacted by a Superfund site or a removal action lasting 120 days or longer. These community members voluntarily participate in community involvement activities throughout the remedial phase of the Superfund process. SIC Codes are OSHA's Standard Industrial Classification System used to identify different groups. Local/state governments are categorized as Division J: Public Administration, Major Group 95: Administration of Environmental Quality, subgroup 9511: Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management. The other respondents, community members, do not have a SIC Code as they do not constitute an industry.

4(b) Information requested

This ICR voluntarily requests information from community members at sites where the impacted community may have unaddressed technical assistance needs including but not limited to: non-advocacy information assistance and expertise; community education needs; organizational capacity-building assistance; and mediation or conflict resolution services.

   (i) Data items, including record-keeping requirements

Technical Assistance Needs Assessments

TANAs will be conducted by CICs when it is determined that a community impacted by a remedial or removal (activity lasting 120 days or longer) site has unaddressed technical assistance needs.  TANAs are not required by statute or regulation and for most sites informal technical assistance (e.g., fact sheets, availability sessions, workshops, trainings, etc.) will be sufficient to meet the technical needs of a community and a formal TANA will not be necessary.

The interviews associated with the TANA may be one of the first opportunities the EPA has to engage with community members one-on-one. RPMs and OSCs are required to accompany the CIC to learn firsthand about the community member's concerns. When the preliminary questions in the community interviews suggest the need to conduct a TANA, the CIC may conduct the TANA interviews with a smaller number of individuals who can help define the community's specific needs. TANA interviewees may include state and local government officials, a PRP representative (if applicable), and community members who have expressed a specific interest in, or knowledge of, the community's technical assistance needs. The CIC will make every effort to ensure all affected stakeholder groups are represented in the TANA interviews and give a voice to those who have not had the opportunity to fully engage in the Superfund cleanup process.  If the TANA is being conducted after the CIP community interviews have been completed, eight to ten persons should be interviewed given the specific nature of the needs assessment.

The interviewer will ask each stakeholder a series of questions, with the responses being documented. The stakeholder interview process will incorporate additional questions or request supplemental information as needed. The interviews will be summarized into a succinct (4-6 page) summary document detailing the unaddressed technical assistance needs of the community. The CIC, RPM/OSC, and appropriate members of the Site Team will review the content of the summary document and distribute the final document to the community. The CIC will explore additional informal and formal (e.g. TAG grants, TASC contracts, or assistance provided by external universities and nonprofits) technical assistance options. The TANA summary document may be shared with external colleges, universities and nonprofits currently enrolled in the PTAP, if appropriate. The final TANA summary documents will be available at the site's information repository.

EPA expects approximately twenty-five TANAs to be completed at either remedial or removal sites in a given year. This estimate is based upon an informal survey of CICs and community involvement managers in regards to the number of active sites where the impacted community has unaddressed technical assistance needs and may potentially benefit from additional informal or formal technical assistance.

   (ii)  Respondent Activities

In participating in the remedial phase, community members may disclose information to EPA personnel during interviews. Community members may perform any or all of the following activities:
     * Participate in interviews;
     * Review the final TANA summary document;
     * Meet with technical assistance providers (i.e., TAG coordinators, TASC work assignment managers, nonprofit staff, university technical assistance provider, etc.)

   5. Information collected: Agency activities, collection methodology, information management

5(a) Agency activities
At any remedial or removal site where the impacted community may have unaddressed technical assistance needs, the Agency may conduct the following activities: TANA interviews, TANA summary document generation, coordinating technical assistance between the community and assistance providers.
5(B) Collection methodology and management

The information collection methodology depends on the type of activity being conducted. TANAs will not require an extensive number of hours as the number of sites where they would be conducted are limited to those where informal technical assistance provided by the EPA has been insufficient to meet the needs of the community. Additionally, the interviewees will be limited to eight to ten persons given the specific nature of the TANA. It is preferable for the interviews to be conducted in person; however, phone interviews are advisable when travel funds or time are restrictive.

The activities reflected in this ICR do not lend themselves to automation because of the decentralized nature of each remedial/ removal activity. These activities are site-specific and, therefore, are not conducive to mass data collection efforts. The use of improved information technology is not prohibited in any way.

5(c) Small entity flexibility

Information collection from small entities (individual community members, community organizations, etc.) is primarily done on a voluntary basis. Since these respondents are providing information voluntarily, the Federal government is not placing any undue burden on small entities and does provide plenty of flexibility.

5(d) Collection schedule
TANAS CAN BE CONDUCTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE INITIAL Community Interviews administered for the development of a CIP or at a later date if the technical assistance needs of the community cannot be adequately defined by community members at that time. A TANA can be conducted at any time during the Superfund cleanup process if it becomes evident that the technical assistance needs of the community are not being effectively addressed through existing technical assistance mechanisms. A TANA is most effectively utilized when conducted as early as possible in the community engagement process.

   6. Estimating the burden and cost of the Information Collection
6(A) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN

Respondent burden estimates are calculated from an informal survey of CICs and EPA community involvement managers regarding the potential number of remedial/ removal sites where the impacted community has unaddressed technical assistance needs which cannot be effectively addressed through informal technical assistance provided by the Agency. Additionally, TANAs conducted by Skeo Solutions (current TASC contractor) were reviewed for estimating the time burden for community members and Agency personnel. The annual hours per activity figure is multiplied by the number of sites expected to be engaging in the activity every year. This calculation gives the total annual hours for all sites by activity.

The estimated number of respondents reported for this information collection is 250. This number is estimated based upon approximately twenty-five remedial/ removal sites requiring a TANA in a given year with ten interviewees per site. The estimated number of responses is 250.

   (i) Community Burden Hours

All community burden hours are due to voluntary participation in the TANA interviews. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires the inclusion of information gathering activities in which the community participates. These activities are those for which information is expressly collected from community members. The PRA (5 CFR part 1320, "Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public, FRN 8/29/1995, Sect. 1320.3 (h) (8)) excludes the following activities from the definition of information for the purpose of Information Collection Requests: attendance at public informational meetings or briefings, response to comments on EPA documents, participation in community groups for which EPA is not a sponsor, reading fact sheets, and making use of EPA open office hours. This ICR records estimated burden hours for community members to participate in TANA interviews.

EPA estimates that 10 people will be interviewed for one hour each at 25 remedial or removal (action lasting 120 days or longer) sites each year in the process of conducting TANAs. The total annual estimated burden for TANA interviews is 250 hours.

6(b) Estimating respondent costs

Respondent costs are divided into labor costs and other costs, which includes all operation and maintenance, non-labor, and capital costs. The methodology for calculating these costs for the three year ICR period is addressed in detail below.

   (i) Estimating labor costs

The hourly rate for community members who participate in Superfund remedial activities on a voluntary, and non-paid, basis is $19.20. The value is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics January 2010 data, which reports an average hourly wage of $18.80 for "production, non-supervisory on private non farm payrolls, seasonally-adjusted" employees. The recent trend in this category of BLS data is for the rate to increase approximately $0.40 per year. Therefore, $19.60 is the average rate over the three-year period of this ICR for all activities in which the community may participate. Labor costs for community activities represent hypothetical costs only.

   (ii)  Estimating capital, operations and maintenance, and other costs

Community members have no O&M, non-labor or capital costs.

   (iii) Annualizing capital costs

No capital costs are incurred during the activities described in this ICR.

TABLE 1: ESTIMATED COSTS TO COMMUNITIES (VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES, NOT ACTUALLY EXPENDED COSTS)
                                   Activity
                        Total Activities at Sites/ Year
                          Hours per Activity per year
                               Hourly Labor Rate
                        Annual Labor Costs per Activity
            Capital, O&M, Non-labor Costs per Activity per Year
                        Total Annual Costs per Activity
                    Total Annual Labor Costs for all Sites*
         Total Annual Capital, O&M, Non-labor Costs for all Sites
                       Total Annual Costs for all Sites
                                TANA Interviews
                                      250
                                       1
                                    $19.60
                                    $19.60
                                      $0
                                    $19.60
                                    $4,900
                                      $0
                                    $4,900

6(c) Estimating Agency burden and cost
Burden on EPA covered in the ICR includes those hours and costs incurred in the implementation of Community Involvement activities. These activities include preparing for and conducting TANAs with community members impacted by a remedial or removal site. Total number of activities and the Federal hours required to complete them are estimated by a group of Headquarters and Regional Community Involvement EPA employees. The total estimated annual burden hours placed on EPA for the TANA process is 700 (Table 2).

Table 2: Estimated Burden Hours for Federal TANA process
                                   Activity
                                  # of Sites
                         # of Activities at each Site
                            Hrs. per Activity/ yr.
                      Annual Hrs. for Activity at a Site
                        Total Annual Hrs. for all Sites
                         Preparing for TANA Interviews
                                      25
                                       1
                                       3
                                       3
                                      75
                          Conducting TANA interviews
                                      25
                                      10
                                       1
                                      10
                                      250
                        Creating TANA Summary Document
                                      25
                                       1
                                       5
                                       5
                                      125
                Coordinating Technical Assistance to Community
                                      25
                                       1
                                      10
                                      10
                                      250

                                     TOTAL
                                      700

Labor costs to EPA were calculated using the assumption that 100 percent of the labor of these activities would be conducted through technical staff. To determine the hourly wage, 50 percent of the value of a Step 5, GS-12 ($32.73) and GS-13 ($38.92) are summed ($71.65) and then adjusted for locality pay using a factor of 1.20, which results in $43. To further adjust for overhead, $43 is multiplied by 1.6, which results in $68.80. The annual labor cost for each activity that involves use of Federal hours is calculated using this labor rate. The total estimated annual costs EPA incurs for the TANA process is $48,200 (Table 3).
Table 3: Estimated Costs to the Federal Government for the TANA Process
                                   Activity
                           Total Activities at Sites
                          Hours per Activity per Year
                               Hourly Labor Rate
                       Annual Labor Costs per Activity*
                       Annual Capital Costs per Activity
                      Annual Non-Labor Cost per Activity
                       Annual O&M Costs per Activity
                        Total Annual Costs per Activity
                    Total Annual Labor Costs for all Sites*
                   Total Annual Capital Costs for all Sites
                  Total Annual Non-Labor Costs for all Sites
                   Total Annual O&M Costs for all Sites
                       Total Annual Costs for all Sites
                         Preparing for TANA Interviews
                                      25
                                       3
                                    $68.80
                                     $206
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                     $206
                                    $5,150
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $5,150
                          Conducting TANA interviews
                                      250
                                       1
                                    $68.80
                                      $69
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $69
                                    $17,250
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $17,250
                        Creating TANA Summary Document
                                      25
                                       5
                                    $68.80
                                     $344
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                     $344
                                    $8,600
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $8,600
                Coordinating Technical Assistance to Community
                                      25
                                      10
                                    $68.80
                                     $688
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                     $688
                                    $17,200
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $17,200

                                     TOTAL
                                    $48,200
     *Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

6(d) Estimating the respondent universe and total burden and cost
The number of sites where a TANA may be conducted over the three year period of the ICR is based upon interest expressed by Regional Community Involvement staff over the past year. The number of community members involved at each will site vary between eight to ten individuals. The total burden and cost to each respondent is a summation of all activities described in detail in previous sections of this document.

6(e) Bottom-line burden hours and cost tables
   (i) Respondent tally
The total burden hours and costs displayed in the table below reflect the community members participating voluntarily at Superfund sites. Community costs of $4,900 (Table 1) are all hypothetical and do not represent the actual expenditure of dollars because all participation is voluntary.
Table 4: Total respondent Burden Hours and Costs
                                  Respondent
                                 Annual Burden
                                  Annual Cost
                              Total 3 yr. Burden
                               Total 3 yr. Cost
                                  Communities
                                      250
                                    $4,900
                                      750
                                    $14,700
                                     Total
                                      250
                                    $4,900
                                      750
                                    $14,700

(ii) Agency tally
The total burden and costs represented in the following table is the amount EPA expects to spend directly in preparing for and conducting TANAs with communities at Superfund sites.
Table 5: Total Federal Agency Burden Hours and Costs
                                  Respondent
                                 Annual Burden
                                  Annual Cost
                              Total 3 yr. Burden
                               Total 3 yr. Cost
                         Federal- Community Activities
                                      700
                                    $48,200
                                     2100
                                   $144,600
                                     Total
                                      700
                                    $48,200
                                     2100
                                   $144,600

(iii) Variations in the annual bottom line
Variations to the annual bottom line numbers may occur as TANA activities depend almost exclusively on the community needs at the site. EPA expects the relative number of annual activities to be similar in each year of the ICR period.

6(f) Reasons for change in burden
This is the initial ICR supporting statement for TANAs conducted with communities impacted by Superfund sites. In result, there is no applicable change in burden.

6(g) Burden statement
The total estimated annual burden hours placed on communities is 250. Total burden hours placed on 250 respondents through 250 responses is 250 hours. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response.
The ICR covers the TANA process which may occur either concurrently with the Community Interviews conducted for the generation of a CIP or at a later stage in the Superfund remedial process. It is estimated that approximately ten community members will participate in TANA process at twenty-five sites per year.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Part B.
This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 84 (Thursday, April 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23970-23971]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-0008]

Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee: Notice of Meeting; Postponement

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting; postponement.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is postponing the

meeting of the Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee scheduled for June 9, 2020. The meeting was announced in the
Federal Register of April 1, 2020. FDA, like other government agencies,
is taking the necessary steps to ensure the Agency is prepared to
continue our vital public health mission in the event that our day-to-
day operations are impacted by the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Therefore, we are postponing this meeting and will reassess on an
ongoing basis for future months. A future meeting date will be
announced in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aden Asefa, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5214, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>301-796-0400, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area) and follow the prompts to the desired center or product area.
Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this
meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting of the Ophthalmic Devices Panel
of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee was originally announced in
the Federal Register of April 1, 2020 (85 FR 18249), and was initially
scheduled for June 9, 2020. FDA continues to evaluate whether and how
to proceed with upcoming scheduled meetings while our day-to-day
operations are impacted by the COVID-19 public health emergency, and we
have decided to postpone this public meeting until further notice.

    Dated: April 27, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-09232 Filed 4-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 40420]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Reinstated Approval of Information Collection: Dealer's
Aircraft Registration Certificate Application

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to reinstate a previously
discontinued information collection. AC Form 8050-5 is an application
for a dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate which, under 49 United
States Code 1404, may be issued to a person engaged in manufacturing,
distributing, or selling aircraft.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 6, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0024.
    Title: Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate Application.
    Form Numbers: AC Form 8050-5.
    Type of Review: Reinstatement of an information collection.
    Background: Federal Aviation Regulation Part 47 prescribes
procedures that implement Public Law 103-272, which provides for the
issuance of dealer's aircraft registration certificates and for their
use in connection with aircraft eligible for registration under this
Act by persons engaged in manufacturing, distributing or selling
aircraft. Dealer's certificates enable such persons to fly aircraft for
sale immediately without having to go through the paperwork and expense
of applying for and securing a permanent Certificate of Aircraft
Registration. It also provides a system of identification of aircraft
dealers.
    Respondents: 2,135 aircraft dealers.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 45 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,601.25 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Scott, Room 336, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-300, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-17208 Filed 7-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23709-23710]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10557]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0011]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt six individuals from
the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (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.'' The exemptions enable these
individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were effective on February 3, 2017. The
exemptions will expire on February 3, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

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

II. Background

    On December 29, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt
of applications from six individuals requesting an exemption from the
epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and requested comments from
the public (81 FR 96193). The public comment period ended on January
30, 2017, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 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 in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the
exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety
than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, FMCSA
considered the 2007 recommendations of the

Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP). The January 15, 2013, Federal
Register notice (78 FR 3069) provides the current MEP recommendations
which is the criteria the Agency uses to grant seizure exemptions.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical
information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s) and
medical information about the applicant's seizure history, the length
of time that has elapsed since the individual's last seizure, the
stability of each individual's treatment regimen and the duration of
time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition, the Agency
reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of seizure
and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS) for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in
the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL
holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State
Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA).
    These six applicants have been seizure-free over a range of 10 to
27 years while taking anti-seizure medication and maintained a stable
medication treatment regimen for the last two years. In each case, the
applicant's treating physician verified his or her seizure history and
supports the ability to drive commercially.
    A summary of each applicant's seizure history was discussed in the
December 29, 2016, Federal Register notice (81 FR 96193) and will not
be repeated in this notice.
    The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not
pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

IV. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment
during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit
annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each
driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.

V. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the six exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the epilepsy/seizure standard, 49
CFR 391.41(b)(8), subject to the requirements cited above:

Ryan Babler (WI)
Craig Lasecki (WI)
Larry Nicholson (NC)
Ralph Parrish Jr. (PA)
Wayne Woebkenberg (IN)
Daniel Zielinski (OR)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption is valid
for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
revoked if the following occurs: (1) The individual fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: May 17, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-10557 Filed 5-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P