[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38381-38383]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15631]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0160]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 10 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0160 using any of the
following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time 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., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, 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.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 10 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Kerry L. Baxter

    Mr. Baxter, age 59, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30,
and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``I certify that, at this time, Mr. Kerry Baxter has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Baxter reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 9 million miles. He
holds a Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from Utah. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Tyrane Harper

    Mr. Harper, 51, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``Mr. Harper has sufficient vision to drive a commercial motor
vehicle based on the exemption he is trying to obtain.'' Mr. Harper
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 16 years, accumulating
240,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Alabama. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, which he was not
cited for, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Edward C. Little

    Mr. Little, 58, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, count finger vision. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Little's vision is
sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Little reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 6 weeks, accumulating 7,500 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating 323,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

John P. Loichinger

    Mr. Loichinger, 36, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist
noted, ``His vision is stable and sufficient to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Loichinger
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating
30,000 miles. He holds a chauffer's license from Indiana. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Jeffrey Macysyn

    Mr. Macysyn, 35, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to a traumatic injury sustained in childhood. The best corrected visual
acuity in in his left eye is 20/15. Following an examination in 2011,
his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Macysyn has sufficient
peripheral vision using his left eye only to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Macysyn reported that he has driven straight trucks for
5 years, accumulating 80,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Indiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Peter G. Packard

    Mr. Packard, 57, has had cystoidal macular edema in his right eye
since 2011. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
150, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``In my opinion Mr. Packard likely has
sufficient visual function required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Packard reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations
for 32 years, accumulating 3.2 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL
from New Hampshire. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Raef O. Parmelee

    Mr. Parmelee, 42, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due
to a traumatic injury sustained in 1996. The best corrected visual
acuity in his right eye

is 20/15. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``I
do find that he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Parmelee reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 390,000 miles.
He holds a Class C operator's license from Oregon. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows one crash, which he was not cited for, and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Ronald H. Sieg

    Mr. Sieg, 41, has loss of vision in his right eye due to trauma
sustained in childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right
eye is light perception only, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, ``Therefore, in my
professional opinion Mr. Sieg has the ability to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Sieg reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 19 years, accumulating 316,198
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 19 years, accumulating
32,186 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Ted L. Smeltzer

    Mr. Smeltzer, 59, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60,
and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``I certify that this patient has sufficient vision
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Smeltzer reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 100,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 100,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Gregory S. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 38, has complete loss of vision in his right eye since
birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is light
perception only, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2012, his optometrist noted, ``I feel that Mr. Smith has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Smith reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5
years, accumulating 120,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Arkansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business July 27, 2012. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: June 20, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-15631 Filed 6-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


                 Summary of Region 4 Public Listening Session
                          on 111(d) for Power Plants

                       October 23, 2013  -  Atlanta, GA

On October 23, 2013, EPA held listening sessions in Atlanta to solicit ideas and input from the public and stakeholders about the best Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants. A total of 156 people attended the two sessions and 75 people spoke.

A high-level summary of the meeting is provided below.

Overview:

EPA Region 4 Acting Regional Administrator Stan Meiburg and Acting Deputy Regional Administrator Beverly Banister  provided opening remarks for the afternoon and evening sessions.  Acting Director Jeaneanne Gettle and Deputy Director Carol Kemker of the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division also provided remarks and moderated both listening sessions.

Speakers included and represented utilities, concerned citizens, faith-based organizations, unions, consumer advocates, environmental groups, community groups, students, public health groups, and energy groups.

Setting the Standards:

Fuel Mix
   * Guidelines need to promote a balanced portfolio consisting of nuclear, hydro, coal and natural gas
   * Nuclear power should be treated the same as any other renewable energy source in the regulations
   * Coal plant could add solar and eliminate need to add carbon capture and storage
   * Power should be both reliable and affordable coal is an important component to US power portfolio
   * Take a go-slow approach and urges growth-based approach that considers all energy sources esp. coal

Flexibility
   * States need flexibility to design and implement the program
   * Sec. 111(d) requires EPA to set guidelines-not standards; don't set arbitrary goals/targets
   * Consider what is best for country in long term and not set a "one size fits all" guideline
   * States should have primacy to develop performance standards
   * States should be able to use flexible compliance mechanisms
   * Environmental groups cautioned against extending too much flexibility to state agencies for rule implementation
   * The standards should be able to be updated in the future

Technology and the Fence Line
   * Performance standards should be achievable by individual sources and based on affordable control measures that have been demonstrated
   * No trading programs, no offsets from other work; limit actions to what can be done inside the fence line
   * Allow for outside the fence line actions such as DSM, the use of cap and trade and permit auction mechanisms
   * Guidelines and standards need to be based on adequately demonstrated technology/BSER (no CCS)
   * Include renewable and efficiency standards for power plants and remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements
   * Should not allow averaging within a facility boundary

Reduction Baseline
   * Several commenters said guidelines should allow states to take credit for CO2 reductions that are already in process from shutdowns and other actions.

Timing
   * EPA should give states ample time to fulfill rule-making roles and give sources time to comply. Three years was suggested as a reasonable timeframe for states to develop the 111(d) plans.
   * The guidelines should provide incentives for early adoption of standards

Cost/Benefits
   * EPA should not use the social costs of carbon to justify the cost and benefit of the guidelines.
   * EPA's social costs of carbon calculations have not been peer reviewed and violate OMB guidelines.

Comments related to why EPA SHOULD pursue regulation of GHGs from existing power plants, included:

1. Adverse Effects of Climate Change
   * False choice that we must choose between public health and a strong economy; we must do both
   * Science shows clear impacts.
   * Climate change damages economy  -  significant costs to: adapt to rising sea levels; rebuild after increasingly severe weather events; make up for reduced crop yields, etc.
   * Carbon standards will result in a reduction in O3, SO2 and PM2.5 and ultimately in asthma incidences.

2. Underrepresented Populations
   * Poor people are more likely to live in polluted areas, and will benefit more from these regulations
   * These rules will be good for low income communities and communities of color, who are disproportionately affected by climate change.
   * Coal is linked to poverty in KY

Comments related to why EPA SHOULD NOT pursue regulation of GHGs from existing power plants, included:

Economic Impacts:

1. Affordability
         *       EPA should not take any action that will increase costs of rate payers
*       Customers can't afford higher utility bills
*       Hardest hit would be those with a low household income
*       12 to 25 percent of their customers are below the poverty
*       Rural areas may be most impacted. Electric companies have an obligation to serve sparsely populated areas which have high distribution costs. This should be considered in the guidelines
*       Coal fired generation provides supply certainty and minimizes increases on electricity prices

2. Impact on Business
   * Businesses need reliable/affordable energy; not having coal as option will undermine business confidence
   * EPA regulations would have chilling effect on ability to attract new industry and jobs
   * Costs of doing business in US will increase and send more jobs overseas
   * Rules should not will impact business profitability and competitiveness

3. Stranded plants  -  Several noted that EPA guidelines would cause premature closures of coal-fired units

4. Job Losses
*       Supporters of the coal industry warned that EPA's actions will result in job losses from coal fired electric generating plant closures
*       One commented that many unions jobs would be lost if coal plants are shut down due to EPA rules -- EPA should avoid loss of jobs at plants which have invested billions in pollution controls.

Science:

 1.    Limited impact
         *       Several noted that climate change is a global issue and because of the limited contribution of US emissions to global CO2, the rule won't have much of an impact. Also, no action is needed because power companies are already retiring coal capacity and increasing natural gas use.

 2.    Climate Change is Not Happening/Not Bad
   * CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessary element
   * Global warming is not bad.  Cold is dangerous and causes death.
   * EPA erroneously assumes that CO2 is the primary cause of climate change.  Temperature has not changed in 16 years.  Antarctic ice is at record levels.

 3.    Legal Authority
   * EPA lacks authority under CAA to regulate GHGs

 4.    Fuel Mix
   * Stop the war on coal; coal is cheap and abundant in the US

Elected Official Participation
   * Two Georgia State Representatives attended with opposing views on EPA's action.  The proponent cited national security concerns and the opponent cited costs and jobs concerns.

No Listening Sessions in Rural Areas
   * Several individuals noted that EPA is not holding meetings outside metro areas but these rules will impact rural citizens the most and they can't attend these meetings


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62828-62831]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24655]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70662; File No. SR- BATS-2013-056]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 12.6 To Conform to FINRA
Rule 5320 Relating to Trading Ahead of Customer Orders

October 11, 2013.
    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 October 3, 2013, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 12.6 to make it
substantially the same as Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') Rule 5320.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 Rule 12.6, which limits trading
ahead of customer orders by Members,\3\ to make the rule substantially
the same as FINRA Rule 5320.\4\ As with FINRA Rule 5320, amended Rule
12.6 would prohibit Members from trading ahead of customer orders,
subject to specified exceptions. The amended rule would include
exceptions for large orders and institutional accounts, proprietary
transactions effected by a trading unit of a Member with no knowledge
of customer orders held by another trading unit of the Member, riskless
principal transactions, intermarket sweep orders (``ISOs''), and odd
lot and bona fide error transactions, discussed in detail below.
Amended Rule 12.6 would also provide the same guidance as FINRA Rule
5320 on minimum price improvement standards, order handling procedures,
and trading outside normal market hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Members are registered brokers or dealers that have been
admitted to membership at the Exchange. BATS Rule 1.5(n).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63895 (February 11,
2011), 76 FR 9386 (February 17, 2011) (SR-FINRA-2009-90).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Current Rule 12.6, the customer order protection rule, generally
prohibits Members from trading on a proprietary basis ahead of, or
along with, customer orders that are executable at the same price as
the proprietary order. The rule contains several exceptions that make
it permissible for a Member to enter a proprietary order while
representing a customer order that could be executed at the same price,
including permitting transactions for the purposes of facilitating the
execution, on a riskless principal basis, of one or more customer
orders.
Proposal To Adopt Text of FINRA Rule 5320
    To harmonize its rules with FINRA, the Exchange proposes to delete
the current text of Rule 12.6 and its supplementary material and adopt
the text and supplementary material of FINRA Rule 5320, with certain
technical changes, as Rule 12.6. FINRA Rule 5320 generally provides
that a FINRA member that accepts and holds an order in an equity
security from its own

customer, or a customer of another broker-dealer, without immediately
executing the order is prohibited from trading that security on the
same side of the market for its own account at a price that would
satisfy the customer order, unless it immediately thereafter executes
the customer order up to the size and at the same or better price at
which it traded for its own account.
Exceptions
    Amended Rule 12.6 would include exceptions to the prohibition
against trading ahead of customer orders. That is, a Member that meets
the conditions of an exception would be permitted to trade a security
on the same side of the market for its own account at a price that
would satisfy a customer order in certain circumstances. The exceptions
are set out below.
Large Orders and Institutional Accounts
    One exception would permit a Member to negotiate terms and
conditions with respect to the acceptance of certain large-sized orders
(orders of 10,000 shares or more unless such orders are less than
$100,000 in value) or orders from institutional accounts. The term
``institutional account'' will be defined in accordance with FINRA Rule
4512(c). That is, an institutional account will be defined as the
account of: (1) A bank savings and loan association, insurance company
or registered investment company; (2) an investment adviser registered
either with the SEC under Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act or
with a state securities commission (or any agency or office performing
like functions); or (3) any other person (whether a natural person,
corporation, partnership, trust or otherwise) with total assets of at
least $50 million. This exception would require the Member to provide
clear and comprehensive written disclosure to each customer at account
opening and annually thereafter that: (a) states that the Member may
trade proprietarily at prices that would satisfy the customer order,
and (b) provides the customer with a meaningful opportunity to opt in
to the Rule 12.6 protections with respect to all or any portion of its
order. If a customer does not opt in to the protections with respect to
all or any portion of its order, the Member may reasonably conclude
that such customer has consented to the Member trading a security on
the same side of the market for its own account at a price that would
satisfy the customer's order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A customer would retain the right to withdraw consent at any
time. Therefore, a Member's reasonable conclusion that a customer
has consented to the Member trading along with such customer's order
is subject to further instruction and modification from the
customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In lieu of providing written disclosure to customers at account
opening and annually thereafter, the proposed rule would permit Members
to provide clear and comprehensive oral disclosure to, and obtain
consent from, a customer on an order-by-order basis. The Member would
be required to document who provided such consent and that such consent
evidences the customer's understanding of the terms and conditions of
the order. If a customer opted in to the Rule 12.6 protections, a
Member could still obtain consent on an order-by-order basis to trade
ahead of or along with an order from that customer, provided that the
Member documented who provided such consent and that such consent
evidenced the customer's understanding of the terms and conditions of
the order.
No-Knowledge Exception
    The Exchange is also proposing to include in Interpretation and
Policy .02 a ``no-knowledge'' exception to its customer order
protection rule. The proposed exception would allow one trading unit of
a Member to trade in a proprietary capacity and at prices that would
satisfy customer orders held by another, separate trading unit of the
Member. The No-Knowledge Exception would be applicable with respect to
NMS stocks, as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act.
    To avail itself of the No-Knowledge Exception, a Member would be
required to meet certain conditions. First, it would have to implement
and utilize an effective system of internal controls (such as
appropriate information barriers) that operate to prevent the
proprietary trading unit from obtaining knowledge of the customer
orders held by a separate trading unit. As proposed, Interpretation and
Policy .02 will make clear that appropriate information barriers must,
at a minimum, comply with the Exchange's existing requirements
regarding the prevention of the misuse of material, non-public
information, which are set forth in Exchange Rule 5.5. Second, the
Member would have to provide, at account opening and annually
thereafter, a written description of how it handles customer orders and
the circumstances under which it may trade proprietarily, including in
a market-making capacity, at prices that would satisfy the customer
order. A Member must maintain records indicating which orders rely on
the no-knowledge exception and produce these records to the Exchange
upon request. The onus will be on the Member to produce sufficient
documentation justifying reliance on the No-Knowledge exception for any
given trade. To ensure clarity and transparency regarding this
exception and others, the Exchange will be issuing a regulatory notice
informing Members of these proposed rule changes. The Exchange will
include in the regulatory notice the effective date for the rule as
amended, which shall be at least 30 days after the approval of the
amendments to Rule 12.6 in order to allow Members to make any necessary
changes to their internal policies or processes.
Riskless Principal Exception
    Amended Rule 12.6 would not apply to a proprietary trade made by
the Member to facilitate the execution, on a riskless principal basis,
of another order from a customer (whether its own customer or the
customer of another broker-dealer). To take advantage of this
exception, the Member would have to: (a) Submit a report,
contemporaneously with the execution of the facilitated order,
identifying the trade as riskless principal to the Exchange, and (b)
have written policies and procedures to ensure that riskless principal
transactions relied upon for this exception comply with applicable
Exchange rules. At a minimum, these policies and procedures would have
to require: (1) Receipt of the customer order before execution of the
offsetting principal transaction, and (2) execution of the offsetting
principal transaction at the same price as the customer order,
exclusive of any markup or markdown, commission equivalent, or other
fee and allocation to a riskless principal or customer account in a
consistent manner and within 60 seconds of execution.
    Members would have to have supervisory systems in place that
produce records that enable the Member and the Exchange to reconstruct
accurately, readily, and in a time-sequenced manner all orders on which
a Member relies in claiming this exception.
ISO Exception
    The proposed rule change would also exempt a Member from the
obligation to execute a customer order in a manner consistent with Rule
12.6 with regard to trading for its own account when the Member routed
an ISO in compliance with Rule 600(b)(30)(ii) of Regulation NMS if the
customer order is received after the Member routed the ISO. If a Member
routes an ISO to facilitate a customer order, and that customer has
consented to not receiving the better

prices obtained by the ISO, the Member would also be exempt with
respect to any trading for its own account that is the result of the
ISO with respect to the consenting customer's order.
Odd Lot and Bona Fide Error Exception
    The Exchange proposes to except a Member's proprietary trade that:
(1) Offsets a customer odd lot order (i.e., an order less than one
round lot, which is typically 100 shares), or (2) corrects a bona fide
error. With respect to bona fide errors, the Member would be required
to demonstrate and document the basis upon which a transaction meets
the bona fide error exception. For purposes of this proposed Rule, the
Exchange will adopt the definition of ``bona fide error'' found in
Regulation NMS's exemption for error correction transactions.\6\ Thus,
a bona fide error is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55884 (June 8, 2007), 72
FR 32926, 32927 (June 14, 2007) (Order Exempting Certain Error
Correction Transactions from Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The inaccurate conveyance or execution of any term of an order
including, but not limited to, price, number of shares or other unit of
trading; identification of the security; identification of the account
for which securities are purchased or sold; lost or otherwise misplaced
order tickets; short sales that were instead sold long or vice versa;
or the execution of an order on the wrong side of a market; (ii) the
unauthorized or unintended purchase sale or allocation of securities or
the failure to follow specific client instructions; (iii) the incorrect
entry of data into relevant systems, including reliance on incorrect
cash positions, withdrawals, or securities positions reflected in an
account; or (iv) a delay, outage, or failure of a communication system
used to transmit market data prices or to facilitate the delivery or
execution of an order. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimum Price Improvement Standards
    The proposed rule change establishes the minimum amount of price
improvement necessary for a Member to execute an order on a proprietary
basis when holding an unexecuted limit order in that same security
without being required to execute the held limit order.
    In addition, if the minimum price improvement standards set forth
in proposed Interpretation and Policy .06, paragraphs (a) through (g)
would trigger the protection of a pending customer limit order, any
better-priced customer limit order(s) must also be protected under this
Rule, even if those better-priced limit orders would not be directly
triggered under these minimum price improvement standards.
Order Handling Procedures
    The proposed rule change provides that a Member must make every
effort to execute a marketable customer order that it receives fully
and promptly. A Member holding a marketable customer order that has not
been immediately executed would have to make every effort to cross such
order with any other order received by the Member on the other side of
the market, up to the size of such order at a price that is no less
than the best bid and no greater than the best offer at the time that
the subsequent order is received by the Member and that is consistent
with the terms of the orders. If a Member were holding multiple orders
on both sides of the market that have not been executed, the Member
would have to make every effort to cross or otherwise execute such
orders in a manner reasonable and consistent with the objectives of the
proposed Rule and with the terms of the orders. A Member could satisfy
the crossing requirement by contemporaneously buying from the seller
and selling to the buyer at the same price.
Trading Outside Normal Market Hours
    Under the proposed amendments to Rule 12.6, a Member generally
could limit the life of a customer order to the period of normal market
hours of 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. However, if the customer
and Member agreed to the processing of the customer's order outside
normal market hours, the protections of amended Rule 12.6 would apply
to that customer's order at all times the customer order is executable
by the Member.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that
amending the rule to conform to FINRA Rule 5320 will contribute to
investor protection by defining important parameters by which Members
must abide when trading proprietarily while holding customer limit and
market orders, and foster cooperation by harmonizing requirements
across self-regulatory organizations. The Exchange also believes that
including this rule will reinforce the importance of and ensure that
Members are aware of these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that the proposal enhances cooperation among markets and other
trading venues to promote fair and orderly markets and to protect the
interests of the public and of investors. Specifically, by aligning the
Exchange's customer protection rules with those of FINRA and other
exchanges,\10\ the proposed rule change will reduce the complexity of
the customer order protection rules for those Members that are also
subject to the customer order protection rules of FINRA and other
exchanges. As a result, the proposed rule will help assure the
protection of customer orders without imposing undue regulatory costs
on industry participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64418 (May
6, 2011), 76 FR 27735 (May 12, 2011) (SR-CHX-2011-08) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change of
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. to adopt customer order protection
language consistent with FINRA Rule 5320); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 65165 (August 18, 2011), 76 FR 53009 (August 24, 2011)
(SR-NYSEAmex-2011-059) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
of proposed rule change of NYSE Amex LLC (now known as NYSE MKT LLC)
to adopt customer order protection language that is substantially
the same as FINRA Rule 5320); and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 65166 (August 18, 2011), 76 FR 53012 (August 24, 2011) (SR-
NYSEArca-2011-057) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of
proposed rule change of NYSE Arca, Inc. to adopt customer order
protection language that is substantially the same as FINRA Rule
5320).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to

90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate
and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-
regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2013-056 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2013-056. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2013-056,
and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24655 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 4, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-1996-1257

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

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).

Applicant: SERVICIOS AEREOS INTERESTATALES, S.A. de C.V.			Date Filed:
June 17, 2005

Relief requested:  Renewal of exemption from 49 USC § 41301 to permit
the applicant to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and
the United States, and other passenger charters in accordance with 14
CFR Part 212, using small equipment.  The applicant also requests
renewal of its stopover privileges and continued relief from the
requirement to provide advance notice of each flight, or series of
flights, between Mexico and the United States.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  July 13, 2004, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  Arturo Rodriguez Mata, 011-52-81-8152-5000

DOT analyst:  Robert J. Finamore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
                                                 Action date:  October
4, 2005

Effective dates of authority granted:  October 4, 2005, through October
4, 2006.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement (“the Agreement”).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of our standard exemption conditions
(attached).

Special conditions/Remarks:  In the conduct of these operations, the
carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the Agreement.  In
the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft
capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum
payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The
above grant includes authority to operate Third and Fourth Freedom
charters.  While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of
the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large
aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and
Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in the case of this carrier, since
the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small
aircraft.  (Other charter operations to/from the United States under
this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part
212.)  Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting
passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United
States in the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

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) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) 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/deferred/dismissed, 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

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                              ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
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;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

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

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

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

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13108-13109]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04311]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-455-000.
    Applicants: KO Transmission Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: KOT--Notice of Cancellation to be
effective 2/23/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/23/23.
    Accession Number: 20230223-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-456-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Annual Report on Operational
Transactions 2023 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/23/23.
    Accession Number: 20230223-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-457-000.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Annual Report on Operational
Transactions 2023 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/23/23.
    Accession Number: 20230223-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-458-000.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Annual Report on Operational
Transactions 2023 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/23/23.
    Accession Number: 20230223-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-459-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Annual Report on Operational
Transactions 2023 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/23/23.
    Accession Number: 20230223-5099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-460-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Annual LMCRA Filing--Spring
2023 to be effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/24/23.
    Accession Number: 20230224-5031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-461-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Semi-Annual Fuel and Losses
Retention Adjustment--Spring 2023 to be effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/24/23.
    Accession Number: 20230224-5050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-462-000.
    Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker 2023--Summer
Season Rates to be effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/24/23.
    Accession Number: 20230224-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 24, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04311 Filed 3-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32546-32547]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14866]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0368; FRL_9964-29-OLEM]

Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System (``e-Manifest'')
Advisory Board; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: There will be a three (3) day meeting of the Hazardous Waste
Electronic Manifest System (``e-Manifest'') Advisory Board to consider
and advise the Agency about the initial launch of the e-Manifest System
(Meeting Theme: ``Implementing e-Manifest: User Registration and
Account Activation'').

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 26-28, 2017, from
approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.
    Comments. The Agency encourages written comments be submitted on or
before September 12, 2017, and requests for oral comments be submitted
on or before September 19, 2017. However, written comments and requests
to make oral comments may be submitted until the date of the meeting,
but anyone submitting written comments after September 19, 2017, should
contact the Designated Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. For additional instructions, see section I.C. of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Webcast. This meeting may be webcast. Please refer to the e-
Manifest Web site at https://www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/hazardous-waste-electronic-manifest-system-e-manifest for information on how to access
the webcast. Please note that the webcast is a supplementary public
service provided only for convenience. If difficulties arise resulting
in webcasting outages, the meeting will continue as planned.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting to give the EPA as
much time as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES:
    Meeting: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2017-0368 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (e.g., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Jenkins, Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery (MC: 5303P), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may
be of particular interest to persons who are or may be subject to the
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment (e-Manifest) Act.

B. How may I participate in this meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this document. To ensure proper receipt of your public comments by
the EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2017-0368.
    1. Written comments. The Agency encourages written comments be
submitted electronically via regulations.gov, using the instructions in
the ADDRESSES Comments section on or before September 12, 2017, to
provide the e-Manifest Advisory Board the time necessary to consider
and review the written comments. Written comments are accepted until
the date of the

meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after September 12,
2017, should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. Anyone submitting written comments at the meeting should bring
fifteen (15) copies for distribution to the e-Manifest Advisory Board.
    2. Oral comments. The Agency encourages each individual or group
wishing to make brief oral comments to the e-Manifest Advisory Board to
submit their request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT on or before September 19, 2017, in order to be included on the
meeting agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted
until the date of the meeting. To the extent that time permits, the
Chair of the e-Manifest Advisory Board may permit the presentation of
oral comments at the meeting by interested persons who have not
previously requested time. The request should identify the name of the
individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) that the
individual represents, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment.
Oral comments before the e-Manifest Advisory Board are limited to
approximately five (5) minutes unless prior arrangements have been
made. In addition, each speaker should bring fifteen (15) copies of his
or her comments and presentation for distribution to the e-Manifest
Advisory Board at the meeting.
    3. Seating at the meeting. Seating at the meeting will be open and
on a first-come basis.

C. Purpose of the e-Manifest Advisory Board

    The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Advisory Board is
established in accordance with the provisions of the Hazardous Waste
Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, 42 U.S.C. 6939g, and the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2. The e-Manifest Advisory
Board is in the public interest and supports the Environmental
Protection Agency in performing its duties and responsibilities.
    The e-Manifest Advisory Board will provide recommendations on
matters related to the operational activities, functions, policies, and
regulations of the EPA under the e-Manifest Act, including:
     The effectiveness of the e-Manifest IT system and
associated user fees and processes;
     Matters and policies related to the e-Manifest program;
     Regulations and guidance as required by the e-Manifest
Act;
     Actions to encourage the use of the electronic (paperless)
system;
     Changes to the user fees as described in e-Manifest Act
Section 2 (c)(3)(B)(i); and
     Issues in the e-Manifest area, including those identified
in the EPA' s E-Enterprise strategy that intersect with the e-Manifest
system, such as:
     Business-to-business communications;
     Performance standards for mobile devices; and
     The EPA's Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR)
requirements.
The sole duty of the Advisory Board is to provide advice and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator. As required by the e-Manifest
Act, the e-Manifest Advisory Board will be composed of nine (9)
members. One (1) member will be the EPA Administrator (or a designee),
who will serve as Chairperson of the Advisory Board. The rest of the
committee will be composed of:
     At least two (2) members who have expertise in information
technology;
     At least three (3) members who have experience in using or
represent users of the manifest system to track the transportation of
hazardous waste under the e-Manifest Act;
     At least three (3) members who will be state
representatives responsible for processing e-manifests.
    All members of the e-Manifest Advisory Board, with the exception of
the EPA Administrator, will be appointed as Special Government
Employees or representatives.

D. Public Meeting

    The EPA is on schedule to launch the hazardous waste electronic
manifest (e-Manifest) system in June 2018. Manifest users who intend to
track their hazardous waste shipments electronically or access manifest
data from the e-Manifest system should register with the EPA prior to
system launch. The EPA will hold a three-day Federal Advisory Committee
meeting on September 26-28, 2017, to address user registration and
account activation issues that need resolution prior to launching the
e-Manifest system. Specifically, the Advisory Board will provide
recommendations to the EPA on the process the EPA should use to
register and activate user accounts and electronic signature agreements
(ESAs) for the e-Manifest System.

E. e-Manifest Advisory Board Documents and Meeting Minutes

    The EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/
questions to the Advisory Board, the Advisory Board roster (i.e.,
members attending this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be
available by approximately late August 2017. In addition, the Agency
may provide additional background documents as the materials become
available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and
certain other related documents that might be available at http://www.regulations.gov and the e-Manifest Advisory Board Web site at:
https://www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/hazardous-waste-electronic-manifest-system-e-manifest. The e-Manifest Advisory Board will prepare meeting
minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency approximately
ninety (90) days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted
on the e-Manifest Advisory Board Web site or may be obtained from the
docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 15, 2017.
Barnes Johnson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Land
and Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-14866 Filed 7-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P