[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52391-52393]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21229]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0161]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 13 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). 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. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective August 29, 2012. The exemptions
expire on August 29, 2014.

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:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov 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 acknowledgement 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.

Background

    On July 16, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (77 FR 41879). That notice listed 13 applicants' case histories.
The 13 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
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.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 13 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 13
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including retinal detachment, acute zonal occult outer
retinopathy, central scotoma, enucleation, amblyopia, macular scarring,
strabismus, loss of vision, and corneal scarring. In most cases, their
eye conditions were not recently developed. Five of the applicants were
either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood.
    The eight individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a period of 5 to 28 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 13 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 43
years. In the past 3 years, two of the drivers were involved in
crashes, and four of the drivers were convicted of moving violations in
a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the July 16, 2012
notice (77 FR 41879).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater

level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these
drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him
or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 13 applicants, two of the drivers were involved in crashes, and
four were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 13 applicants listed in the notice of July
16, 2012 (77 FR 41879).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 13 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following:
    (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the
certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments were
considered and discussed below.
    The first individual, Darshan Patel, was in favor of granting the
Federal vision exemption to all of the drivers listed in this notice.
    The second individual, Khalia Spencer, was cautionary and
recommended additional stipulations to ensure that the drivers remain
qualified and the program safe.
    In response to this comment, FMCSA's exemption process supports
drivers with vision deficiencies who seek to operate in interstate
commerce. In addition, FMCSA relies on the expert medical opinion of
the optometrist or ophthalmologist, who are required to attest that the
vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), and the medical examiner, who is required to attest that
the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41.
Until the Agency issues a Final Rule, however, drivers with vision
deficiencies must continue to apply for exemptions from FMCSA, and
request renewals of such exemptions. FMCSA will grant exemptions only
to those applicants who meet the specific conditions and comply with
all the requirements of the exemption.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 13 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Joseph E. Brunette (CA), William C. Christy (FL), Anthony A.
Gibson, Jr. (IL), Rickey W. Goins (TN), Michael J. Hoffarth (WA), Boyd
M. Kinzer, Jr. (TN), Jason N. Moore (VA), Dennis M. Rubeck (WY), Leon
F. Stephens (CO), Clayton L. Schroeder (MN), James C. Sharp (PA),
Ronald J. VanHoof (WA), and Scott C. Westphal (MN) from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked 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 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: August 20, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-21229 Filed 8-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71091-71092]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24881]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives

notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New
York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):

NYISO Business Issues Committee Meeting

October 11, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-11:15 a.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic&directory=2016-10-11.

NYISO Operating Committee Meeting

October 13, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=oc&directory=2016-10-13.

NYISO Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting

October 25, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)
    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2016-10-25.

NYISO Management Committee Meeting

October 26, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)
    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=mc&directory=2016-10-26.
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102.
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-2059.
    New York Transco, LLC, Docket No. ER15-572.
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-966.
    Boundless Energy NE., LLC, CityGreen Transmission, Inc., and Miller
Bros. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. EL16-
84.
    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 7, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24881 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Page 1 of 4 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ DCTM_ ARP. wpd MEMORANDUM TO: EPA Docket OW 2003 0074, Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005 FROM: Betsy Bicknell, ERG DATE: 26 February 2004 SUBJECT: Meeting Between EPA and Representatives of the American Chemistry Council, Vinyl Institute, and Chlorine Chemistry Council On Thursday, 26 February 2004, representatives of the American Chemistry Council, Vinyl Institute, and Chlorine Chemistry Council met with EPA/ EAD and their contractors. The meeting was held in the offices of American Chemistry Council ( Arlington, VA).

Attendees:

Name Affiliation Robert Elam Director, Regulatory/ Technical Affairs American Chemistry Council David Fischer Managing Counsel Chlorine Chemistry Council Todd Abel Chlorine Chemistry Council Thomas Berger Attorney Keller and Heckman, LLP counsel to the Vinyl Institute Frank Borelli Technical Director The Vinyl Institute Gary Morris ExxonMobil Ken Wood DuPont Jonathan Pompan American Chemistry Council American Plastics Council Memorandum 16 February 2004 Page 2 1Comment period for the preliminary Plan closes on March 18, 2004. Page 2 of 4 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ DCTM_ ARP. wpd Tom Wall Chief, Chemical Engineering Branch EPA, Office of Water Engineering and Analysis Division Carey Johnston Engineering and Analysis Division Deb Bartram ERG ( EPA contractor)

Betsy Bicknell ERG ( EPA contractor)

Meghan Kandle ERG ( EPA contractor)

By telephone:

Carolyn Johnson Dow Chemical Tracey Maloney Rohm & Haas Bob Reich DuPont Bob Budinsky Dow Chemical Tom Burns Merck Bill Yancey BP Amoco Issues Discussed EPA/ EAD met with representatives of ACC and its affiliates to discuss EPA's Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005. The preliminary plan was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2003. This meeting took place during the comment period for the preliminary plan. 1 Discussion focused on dioxin discharging facilities. Frank Borelli noted that most PVC plants are not co located with other organic chemicals manufacturing. In contrast, EDC/ VCM operations are typically located in complexes with other processes and wastewaters are not discharged separately. The industry noted that its estimates of dioxin releases went down from 24.3 to 8.4 g/ year between 2000 and 2002. They attributed this reduction to improved analytical work and solids control. Additional information will be provided in a four volume report prepared by the Vinyl Institute ( Dioxin Characterization Program, July, 2002) and in audited TRI data that the Chlorine Chemistry Council will provide to Dwain Winters, EPA/ OPPT National Program Chemicals Division. EAD will obtain that information from Mr. Winters. Memorandum 16 February 2004 Page 3 Page 3 of 4 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ DCTM_ ARP. wpd The ACC representatives had no information about PAC dischargers ( Coal Tar Refiners), but suggested that EAD contact the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute.

The ACC representatives noted that they did not believe that any aniline dischargers were members of the water team and suggested that EAD contact SOCMA. They also requested a list of the facilities reporting aniline and sodium nitrite discharges.

EAD reiterated the requests for additional information that were included in the December 31, 2003 Federal Register Notice. EAD also identifying other areas for industry to provide information ( e. g., accurate facility and outfall location information ( latitude and longitude) for OCPSF facilities). Page 4 of 4 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ DCTM_ ARP. wpd 2/ 26 Attendance for ACC/ EPA Meeting Bob Elam ACC 703 741 5242 Todd Abel CCC 703 741 5856 David Fischer CCC 703 741 5179 Tom Berger Keller & Heckman, LLP 202 434 4285 Frank Borrelli VI 703 741 5668 Tom Wall EPA 202 566 1060 Carey Johnston EPA 202 566 1014 Betsy Bicknell ERG 703 633 1612 Deb Bartram ERG 703 633 1669 Meghan Kandle ERG 703 633 1684 Gary Morris ExxonMobil 215 321 5212 Ken Wood DuPont 302 774 8023 Jonathan Pompan ACC/ APC 703 741 5175 By Phone:

Carolyn Johnson Dow Tracey Maloney Rohn & Haas Bob Reich DuPont Bob Budinsky Dow Tom Burns Merck Bill Yancey BP


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16506-16507]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07060]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0370]

Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers; U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE); Application for Renewal of Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of application for renewal of exemption; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA has received an application from the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) for a renewal of its exemption from the 30-minute rest
break provision of the Agency's hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. DOE currently holds an
exemption for the period July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2015, which
enables DOE's contract motor carriers and their employee-drivers
engaged in the transportation of security-sensitive radioactive
materials to be treated similarly to drivers of shipments of
explosives. The exemption renewal would allow these exempted drivers to
use 30 minutes or more of ``attendance time'' to meet the HOS rest
break requirements providing they do not perform any other work during
the break. FMCSA requests public comment on the DOE's application for
renewal of the exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2015. The
proposed exemption renewal would be effective from June 30, 2015
through June 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2012-0370 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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 or Courier: 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: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit 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., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document management system
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: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    Certain motor carriers under contract to the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) transport ``security-sensitive radioactive materials.''
DOE requests a renewal of a limited exemption from the hours-of-service
(HOS) regulation pertaining to rest breaks [49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii)] to
allow contract driver-employees transporting security-sensitive
radioactive materials to be treated the same as drivers transporting
explosives, as provided in Sec.  395.1(q). Section 395.1(q) states that
operators of CMVs carrying Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosives subject
to the requirement for a 30-minute rest break in Sec.  395.3(a)(3)(ii)
may use 30 minutes or more of ``attendance time'' to meet the
requirement for a rest break. Section 395.1(q) allows drivers who are
required by Sec.  397.5 to attend a motor vehicle transporting certain
types of explosives but perform no other work, to log at least a half-
hour of their ``attendance time'' toward the break.
    DOE contends that shipments of security-sensitive radioactive
materials require a team of two drivers and the

use of a sleeper berth to minimize risk and expedite delivery in a safe
and secure manner. DOE asserts that granting a renewal of the exemption
would continue to allow team drivers to manage their en-route rest
periods efficiently and also perform mandated shipment security
surveillance, resulting in a safe and secure driving performance during
a long distance trip.
    DOE has implemented several technical and administrative controls
to ensure the continued effective use of driver on-duty and rest-break
time, which would remain in effect under the requested exemption
renewal. They include the following:
     Real-time tracking and monitoring of transuranic waste and
security-sensitive shipments using DOE's satellite-based systems.
     Use of electronic on-board recorders on trucks, which is
contractually required for motor carriers involved in the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant to ensure compliance with driver HOS rules.
     Continuous monitoring of the performance of DOE-qualified
motor carriers using the FMCSA Compliance Safety Accountability
Program's Safety Measurement System, and DOE's Motor Carrier Evaluation
Program.
    Further details regarding DOE's safety controls can be found in its
application for a renewal of the exemption. The application can be
accessed in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice. DOE
contends that these controls enable them to achieve a high level of
safety and security for transportation of security-sensitive
radioactive materials.
    DOE believes that its contract employee drivers should continue to
be allowed to follow the requirements of Sec.  395.1(q) when
transporting shipments of security-sensitive radioactive materials. DOE
believes that shipments made under the requested exemption renewal
would achieve a level of safety and security that is at least
equivalent to that which would be obtained by following the normal rest
break requirement in Sec.  395.3(a)(3)(ii).
    In their initial application, DOE had estimated that 30 power units
and 53 drivers would be eligible for the exemption. The proposed
exemption renewal would be effective from June 30, 2015 through June
30, 2017.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA
requests public comment on DOE's application for a renewal of an
exemption from certain provisions of the driver's record of duty status
rules in 49 CFR part 395. The Agency will consider all comments
received by close of business on April 27, 2015. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will consider to the
extent practicable comments received in the public docket after the
closing date of the comment period.

    Issued on: March 19, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-07060 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72138-72141]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25233]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79096; File No. SR-OCC-2016-802]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice Filing Concerning The Options
Clearing Corporation's Escrow Deposit Program

October 13, 2016.
    The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed on August 15, 2016
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') advance
notice SR-OCC-2016-802 (``Advance Notice'') pursuant to Section
806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of
2010 (``Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act'') \1\ and
Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') to implement changes to its escrow deposit program.
The Advance Notice was published for comment in the Federal Register on
September 20, 2016.\3\ The Commission did not receive any comments on
the Advance Notice. This publication serves as notice of no objection
to the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). The Financial Stability Oversight
Council designated OCC a systemically important financial market
utility on July 18, 2012. See Financial Stability Oversight Council
2012 Annual Report, Appendix A, http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Therefore, OCC is
required to comply with the Payment, Clearing and Settlement
Supervision Act and file advance notices with the Commission. See 12
U.S.C. 5465(e).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78834 (September 14,
2016), 81 FR 64536 (September 20, 2016) (File No. SR-OCC-2016-802).
OCC also filed a proposed rule change with the Commission pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,
seeking approval of changes to its Rules necessary to implement the
Advance Notice. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4,
respectively. This proposed rule change was published in the Federal
Register on August 31, 2016. Securities Exchange Act Release No.
78675 (August 25, 2016), 81 FR 60108 (August 31, 2016) (SR-OCC-2016-
009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Advance Notice

    OCC is the sole clearing agency for the U.S. listed options markets
and a systemically important financial market utility. OCC seeks to
manage risks that could cause a financial loss or settlement disruption
and, therefore, threaten the stability of the U.S. financial system.
One way OCC manages such risks is by collecting collateral to protect
against potential losses stemming from the default of a clearing member
or its customers. OCC obtains this collateral by collecting margin from
its clearing members, or from deposits in lieu of margin of clearing
members' customers through OCC's escrow deposit program. OCC states
that the users of its escrow deposit program are customers of clearing
members who, through the escrow deposit program, are permitted to
collateralize eligible positions directly with OCC (instead of with the
relevant clearing member who would, in turn, deposit margin at OCC).
OCC states that when a customer of a clearing member makes a deposit in
lieu of margin through OCC's escrow deposit program, the relevant
positions are excluded from the clearing member's margin requirement at
OCC. OCC believes that the escrow deposit program therefore provides
users of OCC's services with a means to more efficiently use cash or
securities they may have available.
    As described by OCC in the Advance Notice, the purpose of the
proposed change is to improve the resiliency of OCC's escrow deposit
program (``EDP''). First, OCC states that the changes would increase
OCC's visibility into and control over collateral deposits made under
the escrow deposit program. As described in the Advance Notice,
currently, securities deposits in the EDP (``specific deposits'') are
held at either the Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') or custodian
banks, and cash deposits in the EDP (``escrow deposits'') are held at
custodian banks. While OCC currently can verify the value of the
securities deposited at DTC through DTC's systems, it lacks similar
visibility into cash and securities held in custodian bank accounts,
relying instead on the custodian banks to verify the value of such
collateral. The proposed changes would require securities in the EDP to
be held at DTC, providing OCC with increased visibility into the
collateral, as OCC will be able to view, validate, and value the
collateral in real time and perform the controls currently performed by
custodian banks. As stated in the Advance Notice, a bank participating
in the escrow deposit program (``Tri-Party Custodian Bank'') would also
provide OCC with online view access to each customer's cash account
designated for the escrow deposit program, allowing visibility into

transactional activity and account balances without having to rely upon
a third party to value or warrant the existence of the collateral.
    Second, OCC states that the proposed changes provide more
specificity concerning the manner in which OCC would take possession of
collateral in OCC's escrow deposit program in the event of a clearing
member or custodian bank default. As described in the Advance Notice,
proposed Rules 610A(b), 610B(f), 610C(q), and 610C(r) would provide
that in the event of a clearing member or custodian bank default, OCC
would have the right to direct DTC to deliver the securities included
in a member specific deposit, third-party specific deposit or escrow
deposit to OCC's DTC participant account for the purpose of satisfying
the obligations of the clearing member or reimbursing itself for losses
incurred as a result of the failure. Similarly, pursuant to proposed
Rules 610C(q) and 610C(r), OCC would have the right in the event of a
Tri-Party Custodian Bank default to take possession of cash included
within an escrow deposit for the same purposes. Further, Rule
1106(b)(2) would be amended to provide that OCC may close out a short
position of a suspended clearing member covered by a member specific,
third-party specific or escrow deposit, subject to the ability of the
suspended clearing member or its representative to transfer the short
position to another clearing member under certain circumstances.
    Third, OCC states the proposed changes would clarify clearing
members' rights to collateral in the EDP in the event of a customer
default to the clearing member. According to the Advance Notice,
Proposed Rules 610B(c) and 610C(f) would provide for the grant of a
security interest by the customer to the clearing member with respect
to any given third-party specific deposit and escrow deposit, as
applicable, with the clearing member's right subordinate to OCC's
interest. Proposed Rules 610C(d), 610C(o), 610C(p) and 610C(s),
relating to escrow deposits, and proposed Rules 610B(d) and 610B(e),
relating to third-party specific deposits, would provide that, in the
event of a customer default to a clearing member, the clearing member
would have the right to request a ``hold'' on a deposit, which would
prevent the withdrawal of deposited securities or cash by a custodian
bank or the release of a deposit that would otherwise occur in the
ordinary course. OCC states that placing the ``hold'' instruction gives
a clearing member the right to request that OCC direct delivery of the
deposit to the clearing member through DTC's systems, in the case of
securities, or an instruction to the Tri-Party Custodian Bank in the
case of cash. OCC believes that providing clearing members with
transparent instructions regarding how to place a hold instruction on
and direct delivery of a deposit in the escrow deposit program would be
a significant enhancement to the current escrow deposit program.
    Fourth, OCC states the changes would improve the readability of the
rules governing OCC's escrow deposit program by consolidating all such
rules into a single location in OCC's Rulebook. Upon implementation of
the proposed change, all securities collateral in OCC's escrow deposit
program would be held at DTC, and custodian banks would only be allowed
to hold cash collateral.

Rule Consolidation and Terminology Changes

    OCC's current rules concerning its escrow deposit program are
located in OCC Rules 503, 610, 613 and 1801. Additionally, OCC and
custodian banks participating in OCC's escrow deposit program enter
into an Escrow Deposit Agreement (``EDA''), which also contains
substantive provisions governing the program. OCC proposes to
consolidate all of the rules concerning the escrow deposit program,
including the provisions of the EDA relevant to the revised escrow
deposit program, into proposed Rules 610, 610A, 610B and 610C. OCC
states that consolidating the many rules governing the escrow deposit
program into a single location would significantly enhance the
understandability and transparency of the rules concerning the escrow
deposit program for current users of the program as well as any persons
that may be interested in using the program in the future.
    OCC proposes to rename the types of escrow deposits available
within the escrow deposit program, as well as rename the term
``approved depository'' to ``approved custodian.'' Specific deposits,
which are equity securities deposited by clearing members at DTC at the
direction of their customers, would now be called ``member specific
deposits''; third-party escrow deposits, which are equity securities
deposited by custodian banks at DTC at the direction of their
customers, would now be called ``third-party specific deposits''; and
escrow program deposits, which are either cash deposits held at a
custodian bank for the benefit of OCC, or Government securities
deposited at DTC by custodian banks at the direction of their
customers, would now be called ``escrow deposits''. The term ``approved
depository'' would also be changed to ``approved custodian'' to
eliminate any potential confusion with the term ``Depository,'' which
is defined in the Rules to mean DTC.

New Rule Organization

    With respect to the rules governing the escrow deposit program, OCC
states that proposed Rule 610 would set forth general terms and
conditions common to all types of deposits permitted under the escrow
deposit program. Specifically, proposed Rule 610: (1) Sets forth the
different types of eligible positions for which a deposit in lieu of
margin may be used, (2) sets forth operational aspects of the escrow
deposit program such as the days and the times during which a deposit
in lieu of margin may be made and where the different types of deposits
in lieu of margin must be maintained (either DTC or a custodian bank),
(3) provides the conditions under which OCC may take possession of a
deposit in lieu of margin (from DTC or a custodian bank), and (4)
describes OCC's security interest in deposits in lieu of margin.\4\
Proposed Rule 610 is supplemented by: (1) Proposed Rule 610A for member
specific deposits, (2) proposed Rule 610B for third-party specific
deposits, and (3) proposed Rule 610C for escrow deposits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC would continue to maintain a perfected security interest
in deposits in the escrow deposit program under the proposed Rules
notwithstanding changes to the location of the rules that perfect
such security interest. OCC's security interest in securities
deposits in the escrow deposit program, which are held at DTC, is
perfected by operation of DTC's rules. OCC's security interest in
cash deposits in the escrow deposit program is perfected under
proposed Rules 610C(i), 610C(j) and 610C(k), which replace Sections
3.3, 3.4, 4.3, 4.4, 5.3, 5.4 and 21 of the EDA. Proposed Rule 610(g)
also concerns OCC's security interest in deposits in escrow deposit
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreements Concerning the Escrow Deposit Program

    In addition to the above-described Rule changes, many provisions of
the EDA would be moved in to the Rules. OCC proposes to eliminate the
EDA and replace it with a streamlined agreement entitled the
``Participating Escrow Bank Agreement.'' OCC states that the
Participating Escrow Bank Agreement would provide that custodian banks
are subject to all terms of the Rules governing the revised escrow
deposit program, as they may be amended from time to time.\5\ OCC
states that the

Participating Escrow Bank Agreement would contain eligibility
requirements for custodian banks, including representations regarding
the custodian bank's Tier 1 Capital, and provide OCC with express
representations concerning the bank's authority to enter into the
Participating Escrow Bank Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under the Participating Escrow Bank Agreement, however, OCC
will agree to provide custodian banks with advance notice of
material amendments to the Rules relating to deposits in lieu of
margin and custodian banks will have the opportunity to withdraw
from the escrow deposit program if they object to the amendments. As
a general matter, the Participating Escrow Bank Agreement will not
be negotiable, although OCC may determine to vary certain non-
material terms in limited circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC is also proposing, under Proposed Rule 610C(b), to require
customers wishing to deposit cash collateral and custodian banks
holding escrow deposits comprised of cash to enter into a tri-party
agreement involving OCC, the customer and the applicable custodian
bank. While cash collateral pledged in the escrow deposit program will
continue to be facilitated through existing interfaces, OCC states that
pledges would be required to be made in the customer's account at the
Tri-Party Custodian Bank. OCC states that the Tri-Party Agreement would
govern the customer's use of cash in the program, confirm the grant of
a security interest in the customer's account to OCC and the relevant
clearing member (as set forth in proposed Rule 610C(f)), and cause
customers of clearing members to be subject to all terms of the Rules
governing the revised escrow deposit program. Each custodian bank
entering into the Tri-Party Agreement would also agree to follow the
directions of OCC with respect to cash escrow deposits without further
consent by the customer.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Although the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act does
not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, the Commission
believes that the stated purpose of the Payment, Clearing and
Settlement Supervision Act is instructive.\6\ The stated purpose of the
Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act is to mitigate
systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability
by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for
systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the
liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 805(a)(2) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement
Supervision Act \8\ authorizes the Commission to prescribe risk
management standards for the payment, clearing, and settlement
activities of designated clearing entities and financial institutions
engaged in designated activities for which it is the supervisory agency
or the appropriate financial regulator. Section 805(b) of the Payment,
Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act \9\ states that the objectives
and principles for the risk management standards prescribed under
Section 805(a) shall be to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \9\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     promote robust risk management;
     promote safety and soundness;
     reduce systemic risks; and
     support the stability of the broader financial system.
    The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act
(``Clearing Agency Standards'') and the Exchange Act.\10\ The Clearing
Agency Standards became effective on January 2, 2013, and require
registered clearing agencies to establish, implement, maintain, and
enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to
meet certain minimum requirements for their operations and risk
management practices on an ongoing basis. As such, it is appropriate
for the Commission to review advance notices against these Clearing
Agency Standards, and the objectives and principles of these risk
management standards as described in Section 805(b) of the Payment,
Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68080 (October 22, 2012), 77 FR 66220 (November 2, 2012) (S7-08-11).
    \11\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes the proposed change is consistent with the
objectives and principles described in Section 805(b) of the Payment,
Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act,\12\ and the Clearing Agency
Standards, in particular, Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1),\13\ Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(3),\14\ and Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11) \15\ under the Exchange Act, as
described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(1).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(3).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 805(b)(1) of the Act

    The objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Payment,
Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act are to promote robust risk
management, promote safety and soundness, reduce systemic risks, and
support the stability of the broader financial system.\16\ The proposed
change is consistent with the objectives and principles described in
Section 805(b)(1) of the Act, including consistency with promoting
robust risk management.\17\ OCC collects margin and deposits in lieu of
margin to protect OCC and market participants from risks resulting from
the default of a clearing member. The proposed change will enhance
OCC's ability to validate and value EDP deposits in real time and
enhance its ability to expeditiously take possession of such deposits
in the event of a default. These enhancements will enable OCC to better
ensure that it monitors and maintains adequate financial resources in
the event of a clearing member default and thereby promote robust risk
management. As such, the Commission believes that the proposed change
is consistent with the promotion of robust risk management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
    \17\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(d)

    Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1) under the Exchange Act requires OCC to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to provide a well-founded, transparent,
and enforceable legal framework for each aspect of its activities in
all relevant jurisdictions.\18\ Through the proposed change, OCC will
provide clarity to clearing members, their customers, and potential
users of OCC's escrow deposit program regarding the operations of the
escrow deposit program and the manner in which OCC would risk manage a
clearing member or customer default using the escrow deposit program.
For example, the proposed change would better codify OCC's and clearing
members' rights to EDP collateral in the event of a clearing member or
customer default and provide greater transparency regarding the
operational steps involved in taking possession of such collateral.
Moreover, consolidating the rules governing the EDP and terms
previously located in the EDA into a single location will enhance the
transparency of the applicable EDP rules. As such, the Commission
believes the proposed change is consistent with Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(1).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(1).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes that the proposed change is
consistent with Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(d)(3).\20\ Rule 17Ad-22(d)(3)
requires OCC to, among other things, establish,

implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to hold assets in a manner that minimizes risk of
loss or delay or in its access to them.\21\ Under the proposed change,
all non-cash collateral in the EDP would be held at DTC, which will
allow OCC to validate and value collateral in real time and quickly
obtain possession of deposited securities in an event of default
without involving custodian banks by issuing a transfer instruction
through DTC's systems. With respect to cash collateral, the proposed
change would codify OCC's right to take possession of cash within an
escrow account upon a clearing member or custodian bank default and
provide OCC with online view access to each customer's cash account at
the custodian bank. Together, these changes would allow OCC monitor the
adequacy of collateral in the EDP and be able to more quickly take
possession of collateral in the EDP in the event of a clearing member
default, which would, thereby, reduce potential losses to OCC, other
clearing members and market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(3).
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission believes that the proposed change is
consistent with Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11), which requires OCC
to, among other things, establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to make key aspects
of their default procedures publicly available.\22\ The Commission
believes that the proposed change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(11) because it would incorporate the substantive terms of the
EDP, and specifically the rules concerning default management, into
OCC's Rules, which are publicly available on OCC's Web site, rather
than in private agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the
Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act,\23\ that the
Commission does not object to Advance Notice (SR-OCC-2016-802) and that
OCC is authorized to implement the proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I).

    By the Commission.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25233 Filed 10-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 31915]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4222-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4222-DR), dated May 26, 2015,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 26, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 26, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Oklahoma resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line
winds, and flooding during the period of May 5-10, 2015, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Oklahoma.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, John Long, of FEMA is appointed to
act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Oklahoma have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Cleveland, Grady, and Oklahoma Counties for Individual
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Oklahoma are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-13665 Filed 6-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 55460]
[DOCID:fr22se06-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-590-000]

Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Annual Report of Flow
Through of Cash Out and Penalty Revenues

September 14, 2006.
    Take notice that, on September 11, 2006, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC
(Trunkline) tendered for filing its Annual Report of Flow Through of
Cash Out and Penalty Revenues.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time September 21, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15640 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                              Diclosulam (129122)
                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
                              Date: 25 July 2014

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?
 Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.
 Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.
What does it contain?
 Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.
 Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.
 Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80% or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.
 Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.
 Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).
What assumptions can I make about the reported data?
 Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)
 Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.
 Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.
What are the data sources used?
 USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)  -  pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2012.
 Private pesticide market research  -  pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2012.
 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data for 2004 to 2011.
What are the limitations to the data?
 Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).
 Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.
 Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA.
 Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.
 Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

                                 25 July 2014

     Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Diclosulam (129122)
             Sorted Alphabetically  -  Reporting Time:  2004-2012

                             Percent Crop Treated
                                     Crop
                      Average Lbs. A.I. Applied per Year
                                    Average
                                    Maximum
                                       1
Peanuts
                                     4,000
                                      20
                                      25

All numbers rounded.

SLUA data sources include:
  USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Private Pesticide Market Research

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53097-53098]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19033]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 50

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0408; FRL-9950-46-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS89

Technical Correction to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
revisions to correct an equation in an appendix in the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particle Pollution. In the ``Rules
and Regulations'' section of the Federal Register, we are approving the
correction as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we
receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this
proposed rule. Equation 2 describes an intermediate step in the
calculation of the design value for the annual PM2.5
(particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal
2.5 micrometers) NAAQS. This proposed action would correct a
scrivener's error in one of the equations used to calculate an annual
mean PM2.5 concentration, to properly account for cases
where a site does not have four complete quarters of data and passes
one of two substitution tests. This change accurately reflects the
intended calculation of the annual mean PM2.5 design value
and is consistent with the text elsewhere in the appendix.

DATES: Written comments must be received by September 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0408, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brett Gantt, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division,
Air Quality Analysis Group (Mail Code: C304-04), Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-3613; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    This document proposes a revision in appendix N to correct a
scrivener's error in an intermediate equation in the calculation of the
annual PM2.5 design value to properly account for cases
where a site does not have four complete quarters of data in a specific
year and passes the minimum quarterly value substitution test. We have
published a direct final rule approving the revisions to appendix N in
the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because
we view this as a non-controversial action and anticipate no adverse
comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble
of the direct final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw
the direct final rule, and it will not take effect. We would address
all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to you if you are calculating the annual
PM2.5 design value for a site which does not have four
complete quarters of data for a specific year and passes the minimum
quarterly value substitution test.

III. Environmental Justice

    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This rule does not relax the calculation of the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS design values and, therefore, will not cause
decreases in the design values used to designate and classify
nonattainment areas and assess progress towards meeting the NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    For a complete discussion of the administrative requirements
applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 50

    Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: August 3, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 50--NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In appendix N to part 50, in section 4.4, Equation 2 is revised to
read as follows:

Appendix N to Part 50--Interpretation of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for PM2.5

* * * * *
4.4 Equations for the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AU16.003

Where:

Xy = the annual mean concentration for year y (y = 1, 2, or 3);
nQ,y = the number of complete quarters Q in year y; and
Xq,y = the mean for quarter q of year y (result of equation 1).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-19033 Filed 8-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P