Discussion of Perc Drycleaning Residual Risk and Technology Review with Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Staff Conference Call Thursday, June 22, 2006 Meeting Participants: US EPA/ OAQPS Alison Davis Rhea Jones Robin Dunkins Kelly Rimer Neal Fann Dave Guinnup Ron Evans ( EPA Congressional Affairs) Josh Lewis Jeff Clark Larry Sorrels Senate EPW John Shanahan Mary Ann Dunlop Meeting Summary:   Senate EPW Staff John Shanahan contacted EPA to inquire about the upcoming promulgation of the National Perchloroethylene Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities.   US EPA Staff Rhea Jones provided a summary of the regulatory effort, including: o background on the Clean Air Act ( CAA) mandates o regulatory authorities that govern the effort o health effects from exposure to perchlorethylene and cancer risk levels estimated from baseline exposures o regulatory options proposed to reduce these risks and update technology controls to reflect the current state of technology in the industry.   In regard to regulatory authorities that govern the regulatory effort, Mr. Shanahan challenged EPA's decision to propose or attempt to promulgate risk based standards under section 112( f) of the CAA for area sources regulated by GACT under section 112( d)( 5), stating that the EPA does not have the legal authority to do so under his interpretation of the statutes.   Mr. Shanahan also questioned any attempt by EPA to promulgate proposal option 1 for co residential sources, a ban on new sources, under the authority of section 112( d)( 6) alone, using public health risk as a basis for the decision.   EPA representatives disagreed with these challenges, stating that both regulatory options proposed for co residential sources would be equally supported under both authorities, and that the CAA allows EPA discretion in using section 112( f) to regulate area sources.   EPA representatives confirmed that all regulatory options promulgated for area sources, co residential or otherwise, will be promulgated under the authority of 112( d)( 6), as the use of section 112( f), while permissible by the CAA, is not necessary to achieve the level of emissions control needed in this regulation. The Agency will consider the use of it's discretion to regulate area sources under section 112( f) in future regulations if warranted.   EPA representatives also commented that the agency has the authority under 112( d) to consider public health risks in the determination of the level of regulatory control required when using this authority, and has gone on record in previous regulatory actions as doing so.   Senate EPW staff requested time to consider this, and possibly a follow up discussion that could involve a representative from the Agency's Office of General Council.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44349-44352]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15793]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89335; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2020-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend the NYSE
American Options Fee Schedule

July 16, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 10, 2020, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to offer a new rebate for initiating a
Complex Customer Best Execution Auction. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective July 10, 2020.\4\ The proposed
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
July 1, 2020 (SR-NYSEAMER-2020-51) and withdrew such filing on July
10, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule to offer a
new rebate for initiating a Complex Customer Best Execution (``CUBE'')
auction, provided the ATP Holder meets the minimum volume requirements
as discussed below.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule changes on July 10,
2020.

Background

    The Exchange has established various pricing incentives designed to
encourage increased Electronic volume executed on the Exchange,
including (but not limited to) the American Customer Engagement
(``ACE'') Program and the Professional Step-Up Incentive Program. The
Exchange also offers an ACE Initiating Participant Rebate to
participants in the ACE Program that initiate Single-Leg or Complex
CUBE Auctions as well as an alternative to the ACE Initiating
Participant Rebate--the Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate--that
enables non-ACE Program participants to qualify for a rebate on

certain initiating Single-Leg CUBE Orders provided they meet certain
Professional volume requirements and increase their initiating CUBE
volume. The Exchange is proposing to similarly offer an Alternative
Initiating Rebate for certain initiating Complex CUBE transactions to
encourage ATP Holders to submit initiating Complex CUBE Orders and to
increase their initiating Single-Leg CUBE Orders and Electronic volume
in the ``Professional'' range.\5\ To the extent that this incentive
succeeds, the increased liquidity on the Exchange would result in
enhanced market quality for all participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of this filing, ``Professional'' Electronic
volume includes: Professional Customer, Broker Dealer, Non-NYSE
American Options Market Maker, and Firm (the ``Professional
volume'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
CUBE Auction Fees & Credits: Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate
    Section I.G. of the Fee Schedule sets forth the rates for per
contract fees and credits for executions associated with Single-Leg and
Complex CUBE Auctions.\6\ To encourage participants to utilize CUBE
Auctions, the Exchange offers rebates on certain initiating CUBE
volume, including an Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate, which
applies to the each of the first 5,000 contracts per Singe-Leg CUBE
Order for those participants that do not qualify for the ACE Initiating
Participant Rebate.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Section I.G. of the Fee Schedule, CUBE Auction Fees &
Credits.
    \7\ See id., Singe-Leg CUBE Auction, note 2 (providing that an
ATP Holder may qualify for the ($0.10) per contract Alternative
Initiating Participant Rebate provided an ATP Holder executes a
minimum of 10,000 contracts ADV in the Professional range and
increase their Initiating CUBE Orders by the greater of 20% over
their August 2019 volume or 10,000 contracts ADV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to similarly offer an Alternative Initiating
Participant Rebate to Complex CUBE transactions. As proposed, a ($0.10)
per contract Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate may be applied
to each of the first 1,000 contracts per leg of a Complex CUBE Order
executed in a Complex CUBE Auction, provided an ATP Holder executes a
minimum of 10,000 contracts ADV in the Professional range and increases
their Initiating CUBE Orders by the greater of 20% over their August
2019 volume or 10,000 contracts ADV.\8\ An ATP Holder that qualifies
for both the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate and the Alternative
Initiating Participant Rebate is entitled only to the greater of the
two rebates,\9\ however both of these Initiating Participant Rebates
are available in addition to other CUBE Auction-related credits set
forth in the Fee Schedule.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Section I.G. of the Fee Schedule, CUBE Auction
Fees & Credits, Complex CUBE Auction, note 2. For additional
clarity, the Exchange proposes to specify that the qualifying
Initiating CUBE Order volume applies to Single-Leg CUBE Auctions
(see id.), but notes that, by definition, a ``CUBE Order'' is ``an
agency order that is guaranteed an execution in the Single-Leg CUBE
Auction by a Contra Order.'' See Fee Schedule, KEY TERMS and
DEFINITIONS.
    \9\ See id. The Exchange acknowledges that the two rebates are
currently the same amount--i.e., ($0.10) per contract, but the ATP
Holder would nonetheless only be entitled to one of the rebates.
    \10\ See proposed Section I.G. of the Fee Schedule, CUBE Auction
Fees & Credits, Complex CUBE Auction, note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed change is designed to encourage ATP Holders to submit
initiating Complex CUBE Orders and to increase their initiating Single-
Leg CUBE Orders and Electronic volume in the Professional range. The
proposed Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate would provide ATP
Holders that initiate Complex CUBE Auctions another means of achieving
a rebate based on Single-Leg CUBE and Professional volume, which should
provide additional incentive to direct such order flow to the
Exchange.\11\ The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any
ATP Holders would attempt to qualify for the proposed Complex CUBE
Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Fee Schedule, Section I. H, Professional Step-up
Incentive (offering discounted rates on monthly Professional volume
for ATP Holders that achieve Tier A, B or C as a result of
increasing their Professional volume by specified percentages of
TCADV over their August 2019 volume--or, for new ATP Holders that
increase such volume by a specified percentages of TCADV above
10,000 contracts ADV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\13\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\15\ Therefore, currently no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity & ETF options
order flow. More specifically, in June 2020, the Exchange had less than
10% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity & ETF
options trades.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/market-data/volume/default.jsp.
    \16\ Based on OCC data, see id., the Exchange's market share in
equity-based options increased slightly from 8.20% for the month of
June 2019 to 8.32% for the month of June 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow--particularly to other exchanges offering similar
incentives, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees.\17\ Stated otherwise,
changes to exchange transaction fees and rebates can have a direct
effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See e.g., Cboe Exchange Inc. (``Cboe''), Fee Schedule,
Volume Incentive Program (VIP), available here, https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/Cboe_FeeSchedule.pdf (providing
per contract credits for volume executed in Cboe's complex price
improvement auction). See also MIAX Options fee schedule, Section
1.a.iv, Professional Rebate Program, available here, https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_04012019.pdf (setting forth per contract
credits on volume submitted for the account of Public Customers that
are not Priority Customers, Non-MIAX Market Makers, Non-Member
Broker Dealers, and Firms (collectively, Professional for purposes
of MIAX program), provided the Member achieves certain Professional
volume increase percentage thresholds (set forth in the schedule) in
the month relative to the fourth quarter of 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Alternative Initiating
Participant Rebate for initiating Complex CUBE volume is reasonable
because it may encourage ATP Holders

that choose to participate in the CUBE to direct order flow, including
initiating Complex CUBE volume and Professional volume, to the
Exchange. The proposed Rebate may encourage greater use of Single-Leg
and Complex CUBE Auctions, which may lead to greater opportunities to
trade--and for price improvement--for all participants. In addition,
the proposed Rebate, which is based on Professional order flow would
provide ATP Holders an additional incentive (to the Professional Step-
Up Incentive Program) to direct such order flow to the Exchange.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 11 (regarding discounted rates offered via
the Professional Step-up Incentive).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that all market participants stand to benefit
from increased transaction volume, as such increase promotes market
depth, facilitates tighter spreads and enhances price discovery, and
may lead to a corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants that do not participate in (or qualify for) the
Professional Step-Up Incentive Program. As with the Single-Leg
Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate, the Exchange believes that
the baseline of 10,000 ADV Professional volumes for ATP Holders is
reasonable because these volumes are comparable to trading volumes in
August 2019 for those firms that were active on the Exchange and
eligible to increase their Single-Leg CUBE initiating volume by 20% to
qualify for the proposed Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate.
Moreover, the proposed Rebate provides another avenue (outside of the
ACE Program) for participants to avail themselves of a rebate for
initiating CUBE Auctions. The Exchange cannot predict with certainty
whether any ATP Holders would attempt to qualify for the Complex CUBE
Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate.
    Finally, to the extent the proposal attracts greater volume and
liquidity, the Exchange believes this would, in turn, improve the
Exchange's overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality
for all market participants. In the backdrop of the competitive
environment in which the Exchange operates, the proposed rule changes
are a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase the depth of its
market and improve its market share relative to its competitors. The
proposed rule changes are designed to incent ATP Holders to direct
liquidity to the Exchange in Electronic executions, similar to other
exchange programs with competitive pricing programs, thereby promoting
market depth, price discovery and improvement and enhancing order
execution opportunities for market participants.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., supra note 17 (regarding Cboe rebate on VIP and
MIAX Professional Rebate Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Rebates
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and rebates. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange and ATP Holders can opt
to avail themselves of these incentives or not. Moreover, the proposals
are designed to encourage ATP Holders to aggregate their executions at
the Exchange as a primary execution venue. To the extent that the
proposed changes attract more initiating CUBE Auction (and
Professional) volume to the Exchange, this increased order flow would
continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order
execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes would
improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and,
as a consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby
improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
The Proposed Rule Change Is not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed modifications would be available to
all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis. ATP Holders would have increased opportunity to
qualify for rebates based on their Professional volume with the
Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate. The Alternative Initiating
Participant Rebate also offers participants that choose to participate
in the Complex CUBE, but do not qualify for the ACE Initiating
Participant Rebate to be eligible to receive a rebate on initiating
Complex CUBE volume. The Exchange believes that this proposal should
incent ATP Holders to direct Electronic volume to the Exchange, which
would increase liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market
participants, which may lead to greater opportunities to trade.
    This proposal is based on the amount and type of business
transacted on the Exchange and ATP Holders are not obligated to try to
achieve the incentive pricing option. Rather, the proposal is designed
to encourage participants to utilize the Exchange as a primary trading
venue (if they have not done so previously) or increase volume sent to
the Exchange. To the extent that the proposed changes attract more
executions to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to
make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market
quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting increased volume
and liquidity would provide more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads to all market participants and thus would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, 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.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 14, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to
continue to attract order flow to the Exchange by offering competitive
rates and rebates (via the Complex CUBE Alternative Initiating Rebate)
based on increased volumes on the Exchange, which would enhance the
quality of quoting and may increase the volumes of contracts traded on
the Exchange. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all of the
Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved

market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction
volume that results from the anticipated increase in order flow
directed to the Exchange will benefit all market participants and
improve competition on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange currently has more than 16% of the market share of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\21\ Therefore,
no exchange currently possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of multiply-listed equity & ETF options order flow. More
specifically, in June 2020, the Exchange had less than 10% market share
of executed volume of multiply-listed equity & ETF options trades.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 15.
    \22\ Based on OCC data, supra note 16, the Exchange's market
share in equity-based options was 8.20% for the month of June 2019
and 8.32% for the month of June 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees and
rebates in a manner designed to encourage ATP Holders to direct trading
interest to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract order
flow. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's
market participants should benefit from the improved market quality and
increased opportunities for price improvement.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar pricing incentives, by encouraging
additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \23\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \24\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \25\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEAMER-2020-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-54. 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-NYSEAMER-2020-54, and should be
submitted on or before August 12, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15793 Filed 7-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54625-54626]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0106; FMCSA-2016-0002; FMCSA-2017-0061]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for eight
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are applicable on September 6, 2020. The
exemptions expire on September 6, 2022. Comments must be received on or
before October 2, 2020

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0106, Docket No. FMCSA-
2016-0002, or Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0061 using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2014-0106, http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2016-0002, or http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2017-0061. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_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.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0106, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0002, or
Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0061), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2014-0106, http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2016-0002, or http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2017-0061.
Click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into the
text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting
your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then
submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2014-0106, http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2016-0002, or http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2017-0061 and
choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Docket Operations
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before
visiting Docket Operations.

C. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
    The eight individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal
of their exemptions from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11),
in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits

and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the
eight applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the hearing requirement. The eight drivers in this
notice remain in good standing with the Agency. In addition, for
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's
License Information System and the Motor Carrier Management Information
System are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's
Licensing Agency. These factors provide an adequate basis for
predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each of these drivers for a period of 2 years is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of September
and are discussed below. As of September 6, 2020, and in accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following eight individuals
have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from
the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Weston Arthurs (CA)
Mathias Conway (MI)
Charles DePriest (TX)
Agustin Hernandez (TX)
Robert Hilber (TX)
Richard Hoots (AR)
D'Nielle Smith (OH)
Michael Sweet (GA)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2014-0106, FMCSA-
2016-0002, or FMCSA-2017-0061. Their exemptions are applicable as of
September 6, 2020, and will expire on September 6, 2022.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in
Sec.  390.5; and (2) report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and
(3) each driver prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with
passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the
exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable
CDL testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years
unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if:
(1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the
exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety
than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the
exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

VI. 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.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the eight exemption applications,
FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the
hearing requirement in Sec.  391.41 (b)(11). In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for two
years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-19358 Filed 9-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60940]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27622]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0638; FRL-9972-45-OAR]

Denial of Petition To List Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
Under Clean Air Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action denying petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing
notice that it has responded to a petition for rulemaking titled
``Petition To List Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations under Clean
Air Act Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, and To Promulgate
Standards of Performance Under Clean Air Act Sections 111(b)(1)(B) and
111(d).'' The Administrator denied the request in a separate letter to
the petitioners. The letter, which provides a full explanation of the
agency's rationale for the denial, is in the docket for this action.

DATES: This action is effective on December 26, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Allison Costa, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-0516; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This Federal Register document, the petition for rulemaking, and
the letter denying the petition for rulemaking are available in the
docket the EPA established under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0638.
All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business information 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
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act indicates which Federal
Courts of Appeals have venue for petitions for review of final EPA
actions. This section provides, in part, that the petitions for review
must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit if: (i) The agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the
Administrator,'' or (ii) such actions are locally or regionally
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.''
    Any petitions for review of the letter denying the petition to list
concentrated animal feeding operations as a source category described
in this notice must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit by February 26, 2018.

    Dated: December 18, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-27622 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

			Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 18, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-97-2584; OST-97-3074; OST-98-4617

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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:  Laker Airways (Bahamas) Limited  					Date Filed: December
3, 2003

Relief requested:  Renew exemptions from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of

persons, property and mail on a coterminal basis with currently
authorized U.S.-Freeport services between:

(1)  Freeport, Bahamas, and Allenown, PA/Knoxville, TN (OST-97-2584)

(2)  Freeport and Atlantic City, NJ/Pittsburgh, PA/Louisville,
KY/Clearwater, FL/Charleston, SC (OST-97-3074); and

(3)  Freeport and Charlotte, NC/Columbus, OH (OST-98-4617)

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  December 9, 2002, in
these dockets

Applicant representative:  Pierre Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER>		DOT analyst:
Shelita Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved									Action date:  December 18, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  December 18, 2003 – December
18, 2004

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Reciprocity

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

_X_ Standard exemption conditions (attached)        _X_ Foreign air
carrier permit conditions (Order 96-6-45)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

We found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations.

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 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/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

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.  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 Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI 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.

08/2003