[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46399-46402]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18345]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70037; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adding a New Rule To
Codify Existing Price Protection Mechanisms

July 25, 2013.
    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 17, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
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 add a new rule to codify existing price
protection mechanisms. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 Exchange is proposing to add Rule 967NY to codify and clarify
price protection mechanisms already in use on the Exchange. The
Exchange has in place various price check parameter features that are
designed to help maintain a fair and orderly market by preventing
incoming options orders from automatically executing at potentially
erroneous prices. The Exchange believes that the features assist with
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to mitigate the
potential risks associated with orders sweeping through multiple price
points, thereby resulting in executions at prices that are away from
the last sale price or best bid or offer and that are potentially
erroneous. The Exchange is proposing to add a new rule to codify
existing price check protection and order handling features to provide
clarity on the operation of the functionality.

Trading Collars

    The Exchange applies a ``Trade Collar Protection'' mechanism that
prevents the immediate execution of incoming market orders or
marketable limit orders (``marketable orders'') outside of a specified
parameter (referred to as a ``Trading Collar''). Pursuant to proposed
Rule 967NY(a)(3), the Trade Collar Protection mechanism is not
available for quotes \4\ or for orders with execution conditions IOC,
AON, FOK and NOW.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Market Makers have obligations to provide liquidity through
the quoting obligations set forth in Rule 925.1NY. The Exchange does
not believe it is necessary to provide Trade Collar Protection to
quotes, as they may be priced to address dislocation in the market.
The Exchange provides Market Makers with a dedicated trade
protection mechanism set forth in Rule 928NY.
    \5\ IOC, AON, FOK or NOW are time in force indicators added to
orders that notify the Exchange that the order is not eligible for
Trade Collar Protection. When Trade Collar Protection does not
apply, marketable orders will receive an immediate execution. The
Exchange does not believe that Trade Collar Protection is necessary
for orders with IOC, FOK, or NOW instructions because by definition,
those orders are intended to access all availability liquidity
without delay and cancel if they do not execute. Because Trade
Collar Protection may hold a market or marketable limit order for
execution, the Exchange believes that it would contradict the
explicit instruction of a customer using IOC, FOK, or NOW
instructions (immediately execute or cancel). The Exchange further
believes that the Trade Collar Protection is not necessary for AON
orders because by definition, an AON order must meet sufficient size
before executing, and so partial executions at multiple price points
would contradict the explicit instruction of a customer using an AON
instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trading Collars are determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class
basis and, unless announced otherwise via Trader Update, are the same
value as the bid-ask differential guidelines established pursuant to
Rule 925NY(b)(4), as set forth in proposed Rule 967NY(a)(2). For
example, Rule 925NY(b)(4) sets the bid-ask differential for an option
priced less than $2.00 at $0.25. For any option that

has a bid less than $2.00, the Trading Collar will be $0.25.
Accordingly, if the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') for XYZ is
$0.75 bid and $1.75 offer, any marketable orders the Exchange receives
will be subject to a $0.25 Trading Collar.\6\ If necessary to preserve
a fair and orderly market,\7\ the Exchange may, with the approval of
two Trading Officials,\8\ widen or narrow the Trading Collar for one or
more option series.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The bid-ask differential changes as the price increases.
Rule 925NY(b)(4) sets the bid-ask differential at no more than $0.40
where the bid is $2.00 or more but does not exceed $5.00.
Accordingly, if the NBBO for XYZ is $3.00 bid and $3.50 offer, any
marketable orders the Exchange receives will be subject to a $0.40
Trading Collar Protection.
    \7\ As an example, situations of extreme market volatility or a
major news announcement in an underlying security may prompt a
review of the Trading Collar values.
    \8\ A Trading Official, as defined by Rule 900.2NY(82) is an
officer or employee of the Exchange. Trading Officials are not
affiliated with ATP Holders.
    \9\ If the Exchange announces by Trader Update that the Trading
Collars are being modified outside the bid-ask differential
guidelines established pursuant to Rule 925NY(b)(4), the Exchange
will publish a Trader Update that advises ATP Holders when the
Trading Collars will return to the bid-ask differential guidelines
set forth in Rule 925NY(b)(4). The Exchange will maintain records
regarding when and why a Trading Collar may be modified and will
make such records available to NYSE Regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trade Collar Protection applies to two scenarios. First, pursuant
to proposed Rule 967NY(a)(1)(i), Trade Collar Protection prevents
executions of certain incoming marketable orders when the difference
between the National Best Offer (``NBO'') and the National Best Bid
(``NBB'') is greater than one Trading Collar. Second, pursuant to
proposed Rule 967NY(a)(1)(ii), Trade Collar Protection prevents the
execution of the balance of an incoming marketable order if it were to
execute at a price that is the NBO plus a Trading Collar for eligible
marketable buy orders (or a price that is the NBB minus a Trading
Collar for eligible marketable sell orders).
    The purpose of Trade Collar Protection in the first scenario, set
forth in proposed Rule 967NY(a)(1)(i), is to prevent executions when
the spread between the bid and ask exceeds the bid-ask differential
guidelines and to provide an opportunity to attract additional
liquidity at tighter spreads by displaying the incoming marketable
order at successive prices until the displayed bid and offer is equal
to the bid-ask differential guideline for that option, i.e., equal to
the Trading Collar. Accordingly, if the difference between the NBO and
the NBB is greater than one Trading Collar, the Exchange will prevent
execution or routing of the incoming marketable order. Instead,
pursuant to proposed Rule 967NY(a)(4)(A), the Exchange will display the
incoming marketable order at a price equal to the NBO minus one Trading
Collar for sell orders or the NBB plus one Trading Collar for buy
orders (the ``collared order''). The Exchange will then attempt to
execute or route the collared order to buy (sell) against any contra
interest priced within one Trading Collar above (below) the displayed
price of the collared order.\10\ As set forth in proposed Rule
967NY(a)(4)(C)(iii), should market conditions prevent the order from
trading or recalculating for a period of one second,\11\ the order will
improve its displayed price by an amount equal to an additional Trading
Collar. In accordance with proposed Rule 967NY(a)(D), if the order
subject to Trade Collar Protection is a limit order, the order will not
be posted at a price beyond its limit. Once the limit price is reached
through the re-pricing of a collared order, the order will be posted
and displayed at its limit price in the Consolidated Book. Until there
is an opportunity to execute consistent with the parameters of Trade
Collar Protection, the Exchange will not execute or route market orders
or eligible limit orders that would execute outside it. As new prices
are calculated, the Exchange will continue to evaluate whether the
marketable orders may execute consistent with Trade Collar Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, proposed Rule 967NY(a)(4)(B).
    \11\ The Exchange believes that displaying the order for one
second before recalculating to the next Trading Collar provides an
appropriate length of time to attract additional contra-side
liquidity for that option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the above example of the NBBO for XYZ being $0.75 bid and $1.75
offer with a $0.25 Trading Collar, an incoming market order to sell
will be displayed at $1.50 (i.e., $1.75 offer minus the $0.25 Trading
Collar). For a period of one second, the Exchange will attempt to
execute the sell order against any contra interest (on any market)
priced $1.25 or greater (i.e., $1.50 offer minus the $0.25 Trading
Collar). At the expiration of one second, the Exchange will redisplay
the market sell order subject to Trade Collar Protection at the next
Trading Collar value of $1.25. For a period of one second, the Exchange
will then attempt to execute the sell order against any contra interest
priced $1.00 or greater ($1.25 offer minus the $0.25 Trading Collar).
At the expiration of another one second, the Exchange will redisplay
the market sell order subject to Trade Collar Protection at $1.00.
Assuming the hypothetical market remained unchanged, the new market
would be $0.75-$1.00. Since the market would now equal the $0.25 bid-
ask differential guidelines established pursuant to Rule 925NY(b)(4),
Trade Collar Protection would no longer apply and the market order
would immediately execute against the $0.75 bid.
    The collared order will re-price before the expiration of one
second as a result of certain changes in the market. Pursuant to
proposed Rule 967NY(a)(4)(C)(i), an update to the NBBO (based on
another market center or an inbound quote or order on the Exchange)
that improves the same side of the market as the collared order will
cause the collared order to be redisplayed at the same price as the
updated NBBO. In accordance with proposed Rule 967NY(a)(4)(C)(ii), an
inbound limit order (which is not an IOC Order, AON Order, FOK Order or
NOW Order) on the same side of the market priced better than one
Trading Collar from the collared order will also become subject to
Trade Collar Protection and will cause the collared order to improve by
one Trading Collar (which will redisplay at the new price and
additional size of the new limit order). A new incoming market order on
the same side as a collared order will not cause the order subject to
Trade Collar Protection to be recalculated (but will redisplay with the
additional size of the new market order).\12\ As set forth in proposed
Rule 967NY(a)(6), the order that has been held subject to the Trading
Collar retains priority over later arriving quotes and all orders,
except those with execution conditions IOC, AON, FOK or NOW.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, proposed Rule 967NY(a)(4)(C)(iv).
    \13\ As stated above, orders with execution conditions IOC, AON,
FOK and NOW are not eligible for Trade Collar Protection. As such,
marketable orders with these conditions will receive an immediate
execution (even if there is an order held subject to the Trading
Collar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, if the NBBO is $0.25 bid and $2.00 offer with a
$0.25 Trading Collar, a new incoming market order to buy 100 contracts
will be displayed at $0.50. If the NBBO becomes a $1.00 bid and $2.00
offer (via an updated quote from a market maker or another market
center), the market order subject to the Trading Collar will redisplay
at $1.00. If, instead, a limit order to buy was received with a limit
price of $1.00, the market order and the limit order will redisplay
with combined size at $0.75 (for which the market order will have
priority over the later arriving limit order). If, however, the limit
order to buy was received with a limit price of $0.60, the market order
and the limit

order will redisplay with combined size at $0.60 (for which the market
will have priority over the later arriving limit order).
    The purpose of Trade Collar Protection in the second scenario, set
forth in proposed Rule 967NY(a)(1)(ii), is to prevent an order from
executing at prices away from the market after exhausting interest at
or near the top of the book. Trade Collar Protection seeks to provide
an opportunity for liquidity to reenter the market creating tighter
spreads by displaying the partially executed marketable order instead
of allowing it to further execute. When the difference between the NBB
and NBO is within the bid-ask differential guidelines and after an
incoming marketable order executes against the NBB or NBO, Trade Collar
Protection prevents execution of the balance of that incoming order at
prices that are a Trading Collar above the NBO for buy orders (or at
prices that are a Trading Collar below the NBB for sell orders).
Essentially, the Exchange will permit the immediate execution of an
incoming marketable order up to a Trading Collar away from the NBBO.
Pursuant to proposed Rule 967NY(a)(5), the balance of the partially
executed order will be subject to Trade Collar Protection and will
display at the last sale price. However, if there is an opportunity for
trading within one Trading Collar of the last sale price, the order
will continue to be displayed at the NBB (NBO) established at the time
of the initial execution. Once subject to Trade Collar Protection, the
order will follow the re-pricing mechanism described above.
    As an example, assume the Exchange received a 1000 contract buy
market order for ABC when the NBBO is $1.50-$1.60 with a $0.25 Trading
Collar. The incoming 1000 contract buy market order would immediately
execute against the $1.60 offer. If there is insufficient interest at
the $1.60 offer to fill the order, the buy market order would execute
against subsequently higher offer prices. Pursuant to Trade Collar
Protection, the order would execute against all available interest up
to and including $1.85 ($1.60 offer added with the $0.25 Trading
Collar). The remaining balance of the order that could not be executed
up to and including $1.85 would then be subject to Trade Collar
Protection. The balance of the order will display at $1.85 so long as
there are no offers at $2.10 or less ($1.85 plus the $0.25 Trading
Collar). If, however, there is an offer at $2.10 or less, the balance
of the order will display at $1.60.
    The Exchange believes that Trade Collar Protection applicable to
certain incoming marketable orders (i.e., orders that do not include a
time in force indicator) supports a fair and orderly market because it
prevents the execution of orders that may be potentially erroneous
while at the same time displaying such interest at sequentially tighter
increments in an effort to attract contra-side interest at prices
closer to the bid-ask differential for the option.

Limit Order Filter

    As set forth in proposed Rule 967NY(b), the Exchange also employs a
filter for incoming limit orders, pursuant to which the Exchange
rejects limit orders priced a specified percentage away from the NBB or
NBO. As the Exchange receives limit orders, the Exchange System will
check the price of the limit order against the contra-side NBB or NBO
at the time of the order entry to determine whether the limit order is
within the specified percentage.
    Unless determined otherwise by the Exchange and announced to ATP
Holders via Trader Update, the specified percentage will be 100% for
the contra-side NBB or NBO priced at or below $1.00 and 50% for contra-
side NBB or NBO priced above $1.00. If the limit order is priced
outside of the specified percentage, the limit order will be rejected.
For example, if the NBB is $4.00, a sell order priced at or below
$2.00, which is 50% below the NBB, would be rejected. Likewise, if the
NBO is $0.75, a buy order priced at or above $1.50, which is 100% above
the NBO, would be rejected.
    The Exchange believes that this mechanism will prevent the entry of
limit orders that have similar market impact as market orders because
they are priced so far away from the prevailing market price that
execution of such orders could cause significant price dislocation in
the market. The Exchange also believes that this mechanism will further
serve to mitigate the occurrence of executions that are potentially
erroneous.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \14\ which requires the
rules of an exchange to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change also is
designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \15\ of the Act
in that it seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and dealers
and among exchange markets. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule assists with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by
helping to mitigate the potential risks associated with orders sweeping
through multiple price points, thereby resulting in executions at
prices that are away from the last sale price or best bid or offer and
that are potentially erroneous, thereby protecting investors from
receiving executions away from the prevailing prices at any given time.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that holding and displaying certain
incoming marketable orders for options with a bid-ask differential
wider than one Trading Collar at successive Trading Collar prices
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market by preventing executions at potentially erroneous prices while
at the same time seeking to attract contra-side liquidity for a tighter
market. The Exchange believes that the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets is further enhanced by the ability to adjust the thresholds of
Trade Collar Protection to react to market conditions. In addition, the
Exchange believes that preventing executions of incoming marketable
orders at prices that are not [sic] more than one Trading Collar
outside of the NBBO and rejecting incoming limit orders that are priced
specified parameters away from the NBBO also assures that executions
will not occur at erroneous prices, thereby promoting a fair and
orderly market. Similarly, the Exchange believes that rejecting limit
orders priced a specified percentage away from the NBBO removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by
reducing the potential for executions at erroneous prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposal will provide market participants with additional protection
from anomalous executions. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the
proposal creates any significant impact on competition.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \18\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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-NYSEMKT-2013-62 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-62. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and
on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR NYSEMKT-2013-62 and should be submitted
on or before August 21, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18345 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 45818-45819]
[DOCID:fr10au06-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

August 3, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment of license to increase the installed
capacity.
    b. Project No.: 2330-063.
    c. Date Filed: July 3, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.
    e. Name of Project: Lower Raquette River Project.
    f. Location: The Lower Raquette River Project is located on the
Raquette River in the towns of Potsdam and Norwood in St. Lawrence
County, New York.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Samuel Hirschey, P.E., Erie Boulevard
Hydropower, L.P., 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, New
York, 13088, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Ms. Linda Stewart at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: September 5, 2006.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. proposes
to increase the installed capacity of the Lower Raquette River Project
by replacing the existing turbine in the powerhouse of each of the four
developments: Norwood, East Norfolk, Norfolk, and Raymondville. The
proposed turbine upgrades would facilitate a change at all four
developments from the existing store and release mode of operation to a
run-of-river mode of operation. The total installed capacity of the
project would increase from 12.0 megawatts to 18.5 megawatts and the
total hydraulic capacity of the project would increase from 6,625 cubic
feet per second to 8,503 cubic feet per second.
    Additionally, Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. proposes to
accelerate the implementation of the one-inch clear spacing trashracks
and fish movement flow at the Norwood development from 2010 (pursuant
to the April 22, 1998, Raquette River Settlement Agreement) to 2007.
The licensee also proposes to install upstream eel passage at all four
developments.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information about this filing
may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may
also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies)
should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. A
copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-13067 Filed 8-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56902-56905]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24856]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-
2004-18885; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2007-27897;
FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0174; FMCSA-2008-0231;
FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0303; FMCSA-2010-0082;
FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0354;
FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2011-0380; FMCSA-2012-0104;
FMCSA-2012-0160; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2012-0216; FMCSA-2013-0169;
FMCSA-2013-0170; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0005;
FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296;
FMCSA-2016-0027; FMCSA-2016-0028; FMCSA-2016-0206]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 83
individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision
requirements in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before December
14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2002-11714;
FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2006-24783;
FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0174;
FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0303;
FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187;
FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2011-0380;
FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2012-0160; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2012-0216;
FMCSA-2013-0169; FMCSA-2013-0170; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003;
FMCSA-2014-0005; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0011;
FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2016-0027; FMCSA-2016-0028; FMCSA-2016-0206
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
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 Services, telephone<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-2000-7165; FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-2004-17984;
FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2007-27897;
FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0174; FMCSA-2008-0231;
FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0303; FMCSA-2010-0082;
FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0354;
FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2011-0380; FMCSA-2012-0104;
FMCSA-2012-0160; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2012-0216; FMCSA-2013-0169;
FMCSA-2013-0170; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0005;
FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296;
FMCSA-2016-0027; FMCSA-2016-0028; FMCSA-2016-0206), 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,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-2004-
17984; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-
2007-27897; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0174; FMCSA-
2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0303; FMCSA-
2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0114;

FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2010-0385;
FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2011-0380; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2012-0160;
FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2012-0216; FMCSA-2013-0169; FMCSA-2013-0170;
FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0005; FMCSA-2014-0006;
FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2016-0027;
FMCSA-2016-0028; FMCSA-2016-0206, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, 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.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-
2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2006-24783;
FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0174;
FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0303;
FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187;
FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2011-0380;
FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2012-0160; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2012-0216;
FMCSA-2013-0169; FMCSA-2013-0170; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003;
FMCSA-2014-0005; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0011;
FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2016-0027; FMCSA-2016-0028; FMCSA-2016-0206, in
the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility 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.

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.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for five years if it finds that 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 five-year period. FMCSA
grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with
the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of 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 red,
green, and amber.
    The 83 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), 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 two-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, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than five years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application. FMCSA grants exemptions from the vision standard for a
two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's
medical certification. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,
each of the 83 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the vision standard (65 FR 33406; 65 FR
57234; 67 FR 15662; 67 FR 37907; 67 FR 57266; 69 FR 26206; 69 FR 33997;
69 FR 52741; 69 FR 53493; 69 FR 61292; 69 FR 62742; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR
61493; 71 FR 26602; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 53489; 71 FR 55820;
71 FR 62148; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 52419; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27015; 73 FR
27018; 73 FR 35194; 73 FR 35197; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 38498; 73 FR 46973;
73 FR 48273; 73 FR 48275; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 54888; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR
63047; 73 FR 65009; 74 FR 41971; 74 FR 43217; 74 FR 43220; 74 FR 57551;
74 FR 57553; 74 FR 60022; 75 FR 4623; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 25918; 75 FR
34211; 75 FR 34212; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 39725; 75 FR 39729;
75 FR 44050; 75 FR 44051; 75 FR 47883; 75 FR 47888; 75 FR 52063; 75 FR
57105; 75 FR 59327; 75 FR 61833; 75 FR 61883; 75 FR 63257; 75 FR 64396;
75 FR 72863; 75 FR 77942; 76 FR 2190; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 54530; 76 FR
66123; 77 FR 543; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 17109; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 27845;
77 FR 27847; 77 FR 27850; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38381; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR
38386; 77 FR 40945; 77 FR 46153; 77 FR 51846; 77 FR 52381; 77 FR 52388;
77 FR 56261; 77 FR 56262; 77 FR 60010; 77 FR 64582; 77 FR 64583; 77 FR
64841; 77 FR 65933; 78 FR 51269; 78 FR 64274; 78 FR 67454; 78 FR 76707;
78 FR 77778; 78 FR 77782; 78 FR 78477; 79 FR 4803; 79 FR 10609; 79 FR
14571; 79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 27681; 79 FR 28588; 79 FR 35212;
79 FR 35218; 79 FR 35220; 79 FR 37843; 79 FR 38649; 79 FR 38661; 79 FR
40945; 79 FR 45868; 79 FR 46153; 79 FR 47175; 79 FR 51642; 79 FR 51643;
79 FR 56097; 79 FR 56099; 79 FR 56104; 79 FR 56117; 79 FR 58856; 79 FR
59348; 79 FR 64001; 79 FR 70928; 79 FR 72754; 80 FR 36398; 80 FR 67481;
81 FR 20435; 81 FR 26305; 81 FR 39320; 81 FR 60115; 81 FR 66720; 81 FR
66724; 81 FR 71173; 81 FR 72642; 81 FR 81230; 81 FR 90050; 81 FR 91239;
81 FR 96196). They have submitted evidence showing that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and

that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each
record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies
over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the
vision exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis
for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two 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, the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of October
and are discussed below.
    As of October 1, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 21 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27015; 73 FR
35197; 73 FR 48275; 74 FR 43217; 74 FR 43220; 74 FR 57551; 74 FR 57553;
74 FR 60022; 75 FR 4623; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 34211; 75 FR 34212; 75 FR
44051; 75 FR 47888; 75 FR 72863; 76 FR 2190; 76 FR 66123; 77 FR 543; 77
FR 23797; 77 FR 27847; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38386; 77 FR 40945; 77 FR
46153; 78 FR 51269; 78 FR 64274; 78 FR 76707; 78 FR 77778; 78 FR 77782;
79 FR 10609; 79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 27681; 79 FR 35220; 79 FR
37843; 79 FR 38649; 79 FR 40945; 79 FR 45868; 79 FR 46153; 80 FR 36398;
80 FR 67481; 81 FR 20435; 81 FR 26305; 81 FR 39320; 81 FR 60115; 81 FR
66720; 81 FR 66724; 81 FR 72642; 81 FR 81230; 81 FR 90050; 81 FR 91239;
81 FR 96196):

Timothy D. Beaulier (MI)
Teddy S. Bioni (PA)
James F. Epperson (IN)
Sean O. Feeny (FL)
David M. Field (NH)
Spencer B. Jacobs (TX)
Gregory L. Kockelman (MN)
Michael M. Martinez (NM)
Duane A. McCord (IL)
Odilio Monterroso De Leon (TX)
Aaron L. Paustian (IA)
Markus Perkins (LA)
Kent A. Perry (WY)
Enoc Ramos III (TX)
Noel S. Robbins (PA)
Benjamin R. Sauder (PA)
Roberto E. Soto (TX)
Robert B. Steinmetz (OR)
Douglas R. Strickland (NC)
Raymond White (NC)
Brian C. Wittenburg (NC)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-
2008-0106; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0303; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-
2010-0354; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2013-0169; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-
2014-0005; FMCSA-2016-0027; FMCSA-2016-0028; FMCSA-2016-0206. Their
exemptions are applicable as of October 1, 2018, and will expire on
October 1, 2020.
    As of October 6, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (67 FR 15662; 67 FR 37907; 69 FR
26206; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 61493; 71 FR 26602; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310;
72 FR 39879; 72 FR 52419; 73 FR 27018; 73 FR 35194; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR
38498; 73 FR 48273; 74 FR 41971; 75 FR 25918; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 36779;
75 FR 39725; 75 FR 39729; 75 FR 44050; 75 FR 44051; 75 FR 61833; 75 FR
77942; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 54530; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 17109; 77 FR 27845;
77 FR 27850; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR 46153; 77 FR 56262; 78 FR
67454; 78 FR 78477; 79 FR 4803; 79 FR 14571; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 28588;
79 FR 35212; 79 FR 35218; 79 FR 35220; 79 FR 38661; 79 FR 46153; 79 FR
47175; 79 FR 51642; 79 FR 51643; 79 FR 64001; 81 FR 71173):

Ramon Adame (IL)
John E. Breslin (NV)
Howard T. Bubel (ND)
Scott F. Chalfant (DE)
Curtis E. Firari (WI)
Kelly L. Foster (UT)
Ronald M. Green (OH)
David W. Grooms (IN)
Billy R. Holdman (IL)
Daniel Hollins (KY)
Ralph E. Holmes (MD)
Charles S. Huffman (KS)
Daniel W. Johnson (NY)
Matthew B. Lairamore (OK)
Gary McKown (WV)
Mark A. Smith (IA)
Charles E. Stokes (FL)
Samuel M. Stoltzfus (PA)
Nicholas J. Vance (OH)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2002-11714;
FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2008-0106;
FMCSA-2008-0174; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0385;
FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2011-0380; FMCSA-2013-0170; FMCSA-2014-0003;
FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0010. Their exemptions are applicable as of
October 6, 2018, and will expire on October 6, 2020.
    As of October 15, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (69 FR 33997; 69 FR 61292; 71 FR
55820; 73 FR 46973; 73 FR 54888; 73 FR 65009; 75 FR 47883; 75 FR 52063;
75 FR 57105; 75 FR 63257; 77 FR 38381; 77 FR 51846; 77 FR 52388; 77 FR
60010; 81 FR 71173):

William C. Ball (NC)
Kelly R. Konesky (AZ)
Hollis J. Martin (AL)
Kevin C. Palmer (OR)
Charles O. Rhodes (FL)
Gordon G. Roth (KS)
Ted L. Smeltzer (IN)
Stephen B. Whitt (NC)
Darrell F. Woosley (IL)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2004-17984;
FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2012-0160. Their exemptions are
applicable as of October 15, 2018, and will expire on October 15, 2020.
    As of October 21, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (79 FR 56099; 79 FR 70928; 81 FR
71173):

Todd A. Carlson (MN)
Ronald Gaines (FL)
Billy R. Hampton (NC)
Raymond Holt (CA)
Juan C. Puente (TX)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0011. Their
exemptions are applicable as of October 21, 2018, and will expire on
October 21, 2020.
    As of October 22, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 75 FR
39725; 75 FR 47883; 75 FR 61883; 75 FR 63257; 75 FR 64396; 77 FR 64582;
79 FR 56104; 81 FR 71173):

Randall J. Benson (MN)
James D. Drabek, Jr. (IL)
Delone W. Dudley (MD)
Jeromy W. Leatherman (PA)
Sylvester Silver (VA)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-
2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187. Their exemptions are applicable as of
October 22, 2018, and will expire on October 22, 2020.
    As of October 23, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and

31315, the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (77 FR 52381; 77 FR 64841; 79 FR
56097; 81 FR 71173):

Roger A. Duester (TX)
Charlene E. Geary (SD)
David N. Hinchliffe (TX)
Benny L. Sanchez (CA)
Sandeep Singh (CA)
James T. Stalker (OH)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0215. Their
exemptions are applicable as of October 23, 2018, and will expire on
October 23, 2020.
    As of October 27, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following eight individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (65 FR 33406; 65 FR 57234; 67 FR
57266; 69 FR 52741; 69 FR 53493; 69 FR 62742; 71 FR 53489; 71 FR 62148;
73 FR 61925; 75 FR 59327; 77 FR 64583; 79 FR 56117; 81 FR 71173):

David W. Brown (TN)
Monty G. Calderon (OH)
Zane G. Harvey, Jr. (VA)
Jeffrey M. Keyser (OH)
David G. Meyers (NY)
Rodney M. Pegg (PA)
Zbigniew P. Pietranik (WI)
Joseph F. Wood (MS)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-
2004-18885. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 27, 2018, and
will expire on October 27, 2020.
    As of October 31, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following ten individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (77 FR 56261; 77 FR 65933; 79 FR
58856; 79 FR 59348; 79 FR 72754; 81 FR 71173):

Donald L. Blakeley II (NV)
Marty R. Brewster (KS)
Henry L. Chrestensen (IA)
Sanford L. Goodwin (TX)
Thomas J. Long III (PA)
Matthew J. Mantooth (KY)
Steven W. Miller (PA)
James J. Monticello (IN)
Klifford N. Siemens (KS)
Scott E. Tussey (KY)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2012-0216; FMCSA-
2014-0296. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 31, 2018, and
will expire on October 31, 2020.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5,
who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under 49
CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must 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) each driver must
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file or keep a copy of his/her
driver's qualification if he/her is self-employed. The driver must also
have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. 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.

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.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 83 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: November 5, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-24856 Filed 11-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Armstrong Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s response to Section 114 letter.

Confidential Business Information located at EPA headquarters 1310 L St NW.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 94 (Thursday, May 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28919-28924]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09242]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0195; FRL-10008-41-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; GA; Revision to I/M Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Georgia through a letter dated March 15, 2019, through the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR), Environmental
Protection Division (GA EPD). The proposed changes are to remove
obsolete references, clarify the State's inspection and maintenance (I/
M) requirements, and update terminology, including to reflect advances
in technology. EPA has evaluated the SIP revision and has preliminarily
determined the changes will not impact emissions under the Georgia I/M
program. EPA is proposing to conclude that approval of the SIP revision
will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) or with any other applicable
requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Therefore, EPA is
proposing to determine that Georgia's March 15, 2019, SIP revision is
consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0195 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., 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: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9222. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What is the background of Georgia's SIP-approved I/M program?

    The CAA requires certain areas that are designated as moderate,
serious, severe, or extreme ozone nonattainment areas to establish a
motor vehicle I/M program to ensure regular monitoring of gasoline
fueled motor vehicle emissions by requiring that vehicles undergo
periodic emissions testing. See CAA sections 182(b)(4), (c)(3). This
emissions testing ensures that vehicles are well maintained and
operating as designed, and do not exceed established vehicle pollutant
limits. A basic I/M program is required for certain moderate areas and
an enhanced I/M program is required for certain serious, severe, or
extreme ozone nonattainment areas.
    In 1991, EPA classified a 13-county area in and around the Atlanta,
Georgia, metropolitan area as a serious ozone nonattainment area for
the 1990 1-hour ozone NAAQS, triggering the requirement for the State
to establish an enhanced I/M program for this area.\1\ In 1996, Georgia
submitted its enhanced I/M program to EPA for incorporation into the
SIP. EPA granted interim approval of the State's program. See 62 FR
42916 (August 11, 1997). Full approval was subsequently granted. See 65
FR 4133 (January 26, 2000). Since that time, EPA has approved several
SIP revisions regarding the State's I/M program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On November 6, 1991, EPA designated and classified the
following counties in and around the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan
area as a serious ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS: Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette,
Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale. See 56 FR
56694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1997, EPA established an 8-hour ozone NAAQS and subsequently
designated areas. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated a 20-
county area, in and around metropolitan Atlanta, as a marginal ozone
nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ EPA reclassified
these counties as a moderate ozone nonattainment area on March 6, 2008
(73 FR 12013), because the area failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by the required attainment date of June 15, 2007. Subsequently,
the area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and on December 2,
2013 (78 FR 72040), EPA redesignated the counties to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
consisted of the following counties: Barrow, Bartow, Carroll,
Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth,
Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding,
and Walton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR
16436 (March 27, 2008). EPA designated a 15-county area in and around
metropolitan Atlanta as a marginal ozone nonattainment area for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012).\3\
See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). EPA reclassified these counties as a
moderate ozone nonattainment area on April 11, 2016, because the area
failed to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the required attainment
date of July 20, 2015. See 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016). Subsequently, the
area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and EPA redesignated the
counties to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR
25523 (June 2, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard
consisted of the following counties: Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton,
Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett,
Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 1, 2015, EPA again revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to
0.070 parts per million (ppm). See 80 FR 16436 (October 26, 2015). EPA
designated a 7-county area in and around metropolitan Atlanta as a
marginal ozone nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS on
April 30, 2018 (effective August 3, 2018).\4\ The attainment date is
August 3, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard
consisted of the following counties: Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb,
Fulton, Gwinnett, and Henry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is being proposed?

    EPA is proposing to approve changes to the Georgia SIP that were
provided to EPA under a cover letter dated March 15, 2019.\5\
Specifically, GA EPD provided three different changes to Georgia's Rule
391-3-20--Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (``Georgia I/M
Regulation''), which were adopted by the GA DNR Board of Directors and
became state-effective on November 22, 2016, March 28, 2018, and
February 17,

2019.\6\ With respect to 391-3-20-.06, GA EPD provided additional
changes that the GA DNR Board adopted on January 31, 2014 and became
state-effective on June 19, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA officially received Georgia's I/M SIP revision request
on March 21, 2019.
    \6\ Changes adopted by the GA DNR Board on October 26, 2016,
became state-effective on November 22, 2016; adopted on February 28,
2018, became state-effective on March 28, 2018; and adopted on
January 16, 2019, became state-effective on February 17, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are to update the SIP to remove obsolete
references, clarify the State's I/M requirements, and update
terminology, including to reflect advances in technology. These
proposed changes include adding, removing, and revising definitions
applicable to the Georgia I/M Regulation. EPA is proposing to determine
that the changes will not impact emissions. Additional detail on the
changes and EPA's analysis is contained in Section III.

III. State's Submittal and EPA's Analysis

    Georgia's March 15, 2019, SIP revision seeks to modify the
following sections of the Georgia's SIP-approved I/M Regulation: Rule
391-3-20-.01, ``Definitions;'' Rule 391-3-20-.03, ``Covered Vehicles:
Exemptions;'' Rule 391-3-20-.04, ``Emission Inspection Procedures;''
Rule 391-3-20-.05, ``Emission Standards;'' Rule 391-3-20-.06, ``Testing
of Exhaust Emissions by Remote Sensing Technology or Other Means;''
Rule 391-3-20-.07, ``Inspection Equipment System Specification;'' Rule
391-3-20-.09, ``Inspection Station Requirements;'' Rule 391-3-20-.10,
``Certificates of Authorization;'' Rule 391-3-20-.11, ``Inspector
Qualifications and Certification;'' Rule 391-3-20-.13, ``Certificate of
Emission Inspection;'' Rule 391-3-20-.15, ``Repairs and Retests;'' Rule
391-3-20-.17, ``Waivers;'' and Rule 391-3-20-.18, ``Sale of Vehicles.''
EPA's analysis of these changes is provided in sections III.A through
III.N.

A. Rule 391-3-20-.01, ``Definitions''

    Georgia's March 15, 2019, SIP revision includes the following: (1)
Changes to the definitions of Acceleration Simulation Mode 2525/5015
exhaust emission test, Calibration, DLC, E-Certs, Georgia Analyzer
System, Grandfathered Vehicle, Light Duty Vehicle, Management
Contractor, Station Owner, and 2-speed idle (TSI) test; (2) additions
of definitions for Certificate of Authorization, Certificate of
Emissions Inspection, Emissions Inspector Certification Training
Program Manual, Georgia Analyzer System Hardware and Software
Specifications, Georgia's Clean Air Force, Inspection Term, Responsible
Motor Vehicle, Revolutions per Minute, and State-Certified Emissions
Inspection Station; and (3) removal of the terms I/M Inspection
Procedures Manual, I/M Test Manual, and State Inspection Program. EPA
has evaluated the changes to the definitions and has made the
preliminary determination that the changes are to clarify the
requirements, to delete obsolete references, and to add definitions.
EPA's analysis of each of these changes is provided in further detail
in the following discussion.
1. Revised Definitions
    The following provides details and EPA's analysis of definition
rule provisions related to the Georgia I/M program that were revised by
Georgia, and for which the State has requested that EPA incorporate
into the Georgia SIP.
a. Acceleration Simulation Mode 2525/5015 Exhaust Emission Test
    The term ``Acceleration Simulation Mode 2525/5015 exhaust emission
test'' is revised to remove references to a chassis dynamometer and the
I/M Inspection Procedures Manual, which are obsolete.\7\ The rule now
provides specific language on testing requirements by identifying the
manner in which 2525 and 5015 tests are to be run (25 percent engine
load at 25 miles per hour and 50 percent engine load at 15 miles per
hour, respectively). EPA has made the preliminary determination that
these changes are SIP strengthening because the edits provide
additional clarity within the SIP and will not impact emissions.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See sections III.A.2.c. and 3.a. of this document for
further information about the I/M Inspection Procedures Manual and
the Emissions Inspector Certification Training Program Manual,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Calibration
    The term of ``Calibration'' contains a minor revision to more
clearly explain the test values of the GAS emissions bench. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that this change will not impact
emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this change.
c. DLC
    The term ``DLC'' adds the word ``diagnostic'' to the definition to
include both data and the diagnostics. This addition is consistent with
the outputs the tests provides. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this minor change will not impact emissions.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this change.
d. E-Certs
    The term ``E-Certs'' adds the word blank to electronic
certification of emission inspection, to avoid confusion that they are
not prepopulated, and adds wording that these forms must be purchased
by the official emission inspection station preforming the test. EPA
has made the preliminary determination that this minor change will not
impact emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this change.
e. Georgia Analyzer System
    The definition of ``Georgia Analyzer System'' clarifies that this
test system must be approved by GA EPD. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this minor change will not impact emissions.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this change.
f. Grandfathered Vehicle
    The term ``Grandfathered Vehicle'' adds language to clarify that
vehicles manufactured outside of the United States are subject to the
Georgia Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance Act. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that this minor change will not
impact emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this change.
g. Light Duty Vehicle
    The term light duty vehicle is revised to specify that such
vehicles have a gross vehicle weight rating (``GVWR'') 8,500 pounds or
less. This change is intended to avoid confusion as to which vehicles
are considered light duty and revises the term to match the federal
vehicle classification and 40 CFR 51.356. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this change is consistent with EPA's inspection and
maintenance regulations at 40 CFR 51 subpart S and will not impact
emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this change.
h. Management Contractor
    The term ``Management Contractor'' is revised to remove the word
``certain'' before the other functions that the management contractor
performs for the state I/M program. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this minor change will not impact emissions.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this change.
i. Station Owner
    The term ``Station Owner'' is revised to specify that the entity is
the owner or

has control of the daily operation of an inspection station and is not
the person preforming the actual emissions test. EPA notes that the
person certified to perform emissions is defined as ``Inspector.'' EPA
has made the preliminary determination that this change will not impact
emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this change.
j. 2-Speed Idle (TSI) Test
    The term ``2-speed idle (TSI)'' test is revised to remove a
reference to the I/M Inspection Procedures Manual and instead provide
specific language on the testing requirement by describing that the TSI
test is run at idle at revolutions per minute (RPM) speed and higher
RPM speed as determined by the GAS Specs. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this change is SIP strengthening because the edits
provide additional clarity within the SIP and will not impact
emissions. EPA has made the preliminary determination that this change
will not impact emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this
change.
2. Added Definitions
    The following provides details and EPA's analysis of definition
rule provisions related to the Georgia I/M program that were added by
Georgia, and for which the State has requested that EPA incorporate
into the Georgia SIP.
a. Certificate of Authorization
    The term ``Certificate of Authorization'' is defined as a
certificate issued to each station designated as an official emissions
station. EPA has made the preliminary determination that this change is
SIP strengthening by identifying the different types of I/M-related
certificates issued by GA EPD and will not impact emissions. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to approve this change.
b. Certificate of Emissions Inspection
    The term ``Certificate of Emissions Inspection'' is defined as a
certificate issued to stations that have been inspected and approved by
GA EPD. EPA has made the preliminary determination that this change is
SIP strengthening by identifying the different types of I/M-related
certificates issued by GA EPD and will not impact emissions. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to approve this change.
c. Emissions Inspector Certification Training Program Manual
    The definition of ``Emissions Inspector Certification Training
Program Manual'' is added to provide that the manual is supplied to
inspectors during the initial certification and replaces the I/M
Inspection Procedures Manual. It also adds informational language that
the manual is available on-line on the Georgia Clean Air Force (GCAF)
website. EPA has made the preliminary determination that these changes
will not negatively impact implementation of the I/M program and will
not impact emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this
change.
d. Georgia Analyzer System Hardware and Software Specifications
    The changes include the addition of the term ``Georgia Analyzer
System Hardware and Software Specifications'' (``GAS Specs''), which
provides the specifications for the hardware and software requirements
of the Georgia Analyzer System (``GAS''). EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this change is SIP strengthening by providing
clarification as to the exact hardware and software requirements for
the GAS Specs system used and will not impact emissions. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to approve this change.
e. Georgia's Clean Air Force
    The term ``Georgia's Clean Air Force'' is added, defined as the
partnership between GA EPD and the Management Contractor to implement
Georgia's I/M Program. This term is used throughout the program and is
added to provide clarity as to who this group is and its relationship
to GA EPD and the state I/M program. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this change is consistent with 40 CFR part 51
Subpart S and will not impact emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve this change.
f. Inspection Term
    The term ``Inspection Term'' is added. This term is defined as the
time period a certificate of emission inspection is considered valid.
EPA notes that time period of the inspection term is provided in 391-3-
20-.12. EPA has made the preliminary determination that this change
provides additional clarity and will not impact emissions. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to approve this change.
g. Responsible Motor Vehicle
    The definition of ``Responsible Motor Vehicle'' is added to provide
clarity as to which vehicles are subject to the requirements of the I/M
program, specifically those defined as light duty vehicles or light
duty trucks. The EPA has made the preliminary determination that the
definition is consistent with 40 CFR part 51 subpart S (see, e.g. 40
CFR 51.351), and the change will not impact emissions. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to approve this change.
h. Revolutions per Minute
    The term ``Revolutions per Minute'' is added to explain that RPM
means the number of times the crankshaft of an engine makes a complete
360 degree turn in one minute. EPA has made the preliminary
determination the definition is consistent with the federal testing
requirement,\8\ and the change will not impact emissions. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to approve this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See IM240 & Evap Technical Guidance, April 2000, available
at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPdf.cgi?Dockey=P1008F0I.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. State-Certified Emissions Inspection Station
    The term ``State Certified Emissions Inspection Station'' is
defined as a facility that has met all the qualifications of the
Georgia Air Quality Control Act (``GAQCA'') and the Georgia I/M
Regulation and is certified by the GA EPD Director. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that this change is SIP strengthening by
providing additional clarity within the SIP, will not impact
implementation of the SIP and will not impact emissions. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to approve this change.
3. Removed Definitions
    The following provides details and EPA's analysis of definition
rule provisions related to the Georgia I/M program that the State has
requested EPA remove from the Georgia SIP.
a. I/M Inspection Procedures Manual
    Georgia requests removal of the term ``I/M Inspection Procedures
Manual'' from the SIP. This term is no longer used in the Georgia I/M
Regulation, as reliance in the program on hard copy manuals has been
replaced with the GAS system. In addition, this manual has been
replaced with the Emissions Inspector Certification Training Program
Manual, which is supplied to emissions inspectors upon their initial
certification. EPA has made the preliminary determination that this
change will not impact emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve this change.
b. I/M Test Manual
    Georgia requests removal of the term ``I/M Test Manual'' from the
SIP. This term is no longer used in the Georgia I/M Regulation, as
reliance in the program on hard copy manuals has been

replaced with the GAS system. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this change will not impact emissions. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to approve this change.
c. State Inspection Program
    Georgia requests removal of the term ``State Inspection Program''
from the SIP. This term is no longer used in the Georgia I/M Regulation
as 391-3-20 now references the program as the ``Georgia I/M Program.''
EPA has made the preliminary determination that this change will not
affect implementation of the SIP and will not impact emissions.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this change.

B. Rule 391-3-20-.03, ``Covered Vehicles: Exemptions''

    Rule 391-3-20-.03, ``Covered Vehicles: Exemptions,'' is being
amended for clarity and consistency with terminology, such as replacing
``covered vehicle'' with ``responsible motor vehicle'' to differentiate
between the term defined in 391-3-20-.01 and the applicability of
``Covered Vehicles'' as defined in 391-3-20-.03. Further, changes to
391-3-20-.03 clarify that 391-3-20 applies to all vehicles required to
be registered rather than just vehicles that are registered or are
pending registration.
    EPA has reviewed the changes and preliminarily determined that
these changes do not impact emissions and are consistent with 40 CFR 51
subpart S. These changes are SIP strengthening by providing additional
clarity to the SIP. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the
changes to Rule 391-3-20-.03 into Georgia's SIP.

C. Rule 391-3-20-.04, ``Emission Inspection Procedures''

    Rule 391-3-20-.04, ``Emission Inspection Procedures,'' is being
amended to insert the word ``initial'' into the requirement for annual
inspections to differentiate with re-inspections in the same year, to
require inspectors to perform reinspection of the portions of a
previously-failed inspection, and to revise terminology for consistency
within Georgia's regulations. In addition, the changes allow inspectors
to use any published traction control chart available, rather than a
specific EPD approved traction control chart. EPA has reviewed these
changes and preliminarily determined that they do not impact emissions
and are consistent with 40 CFR part 51 subpart S. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve the changes to Rule 391-3-20-.04 into Georgia's
SIP.

D. Rule 391-3-20-.05, ``Emission Standards''

    Rule 391-3-20-.05, ``Emission Standards'' is amended to delete an
outdated reference to the emission inspector training program as well
as updating references from the test manual name to the GAS. Rule 391-
3-20-.05 adds clarifying language to reflect that the vehicle
manufacturer programs the malfunction illumination light. EPA has made
the preliminary determination that these changes provide additional
clarity within the SIP, and will not impact emissions. Accordingly, EPA
is proposing to approve the changes to Rule 391-3-20-.05 into Georgia's
SIP.

E. Rule 391-3-20-.06, ``Testing of Exhaust Emissions by Remote Sensing
Technology or Other Means''

    Rule 391-3-20-.06, ``Testing of Exhaust Emissions by Remote Sensing
Technology or Other Means,'' is being amended to require on-road
testing of the lesser of 0.5 percent of the vehicle population or
20,000 vehicles, and also to provide flexibility to the State as to the
type of on-road testing that can be conducted.\9\ In addition, the
changes replace a testing scheme for cars that are identified as high
emitting vehicles by on-road testing with the testing procedures in
391-3-20-.04 and .05. Last, edits to 391-3-20-.06 remove a provision
specifying that vehicle owners would be in violation of section 391-3-
20 under certain circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 1/16/2014 changes at A-5 (``[R]evised Paragraph (1) . .
. provides the Division flexibility in implementing a remote sensing
or alternative program as needed to meet federal requirements''),
and 1/2/2019 changes at D-3 (``Paragraph (1) is being revised to
include ``on-road testing measures'' as a type of exhaust testing
and to describe remote sensing or other means of established
testing. Paragraph (1) is also being revised to specify that the
federal requirement for on-road testing and high emitter testing is
`at least 0.5% of the vehicle population or 20,000 vehicles,
whichever is less.' '').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed the changes and preliminarily determined that
these changes will not impact emissions and are consistent with 40 CFR
part 51 subpart S. With respect to the additional flexibility as to the
type of on-road testing, the State will be obligated to conduct on-road
testing on the lesser of 0.5 percent of the vehicle population or
20,000 vehicles, and identify high emitting vehicles, consistent with
40 CFR part 51 subpart S. Since high emitting vehicles must present
their vehicles for emissions inspection, and--if the high emitting
vehicle fails the emission inspection under 391-3-20-.04 and 391-3-
20-.05--must pass a reinspection under 391-3-20-.15, EPA does not
anticipate emissions increases associated with this change. With
respect to the removal of the provision regarding violations, EPA does
not anticipate emissions increases associated with the removal of this
requirement because the regulations will continue to require a vehicle
owner present the vehicle for inspection within 30 days of
notification. Further, without a passing emission certificate the
vehicle cannot be registered, and without registration, the vehicle
cannot legally operate on highways. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve the revisions to Rule 391-3-20-.06 into Georgia's SIP.

F. Rule 391-3-20-.07, ``Inspection Equipment System Specification''

    Rule 391-3-20-.07, ``Inspection Equipment System Specification,''
is being amended to add language requiring station owners to acquire a
specific manufacturer's published Fuel Cap Testing Application Chart,
and to clarify that inspection stations must have an appropriate GAS
for their class of station. In addition, the changes to 391-3-20-.07
include language to specify that the inspection stations must have
systems that have been approved by the GA EPD.
    EPA has reviewed the changes and preliminarily determined that
these changes will not impact emissions and are consistent with 40 CFR
part 51 subpart S. These changes are SIP strengthening by updating the
SIP to reflect more recent technology and providing additional clarity
to the SIP. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to
Rule 391-3-20-.07 into Georgia's SIP.

G. Rule 391-3-20-.09, ``Inspection Station Requirements''

    Rule 391-3-20-.09, ``Inspection Station Requirements,'' is amended
to remove language at 391-3-20-.09(c)(4), specifying that the Director
can suspend or revoke a station's Certificate of Authorization if it
fails to comply with the requirements of the mobile GAS. Additional
changes identify the materials that must be provided by a public
inspection station by adding language to specify that the relevant
poster is the one provided at the time of station certification, and
that a Q&A brochure must be provided. Changes to the requirements for
station owners include edits to require a specific Emissions Repair
Form (replacing the term ``repair information form''), broaden the type
of traction control charts each station must maintain, provide a web
address for the location of the OBD DLC Location Chart, and require
station owners to maintain

Version 1.4 of the Emissions Inspector Certification Training Program
Manual. Requirements for fleet inspection stations are revised to
remove language requiring certain fleet inspection technicians to be
certified in the area of advanced automotive engine diagnostic and
repair. In addition, 391-3-20-.09 is amended to clarify that the sign
posted at inspection stations reflects a state certified station, to
clarify that the Repair Watch Public Report is issued quarterly, and to
require station owners to provide an email address with their contact
information. Finally, changes to paragraphs (i)(3) and (5) revise the
requirements for the required type of internet connection.
    EPA has reviewed the changes and has made the preliminary
determination that these changes do not impact emissions and are
consistent with 40 CFR part 51 subpart S. With respect to the removal
of language at 391-3-1-.09(c)(4), the general provisions regarding
Certificates of Authorization at 391-3-20-.10 provide that the GA EPD
Director can suspend or revoke a station's Certificate of
Authorization. With respect to the changes related to internet
requirements and the removal of the requirement for certain fleet
inspection technicians to be certified in the area of advanced
automotive engine diagnostic and repair, the changes reflect current
technology as the diagnostic tools now perform the required analysis,
and EPA is proposing to make the determination that the changes will
not impact implementation of the SIP and will not impact emissions. The
remainder of the changes, including those regarding materials and
internet requirements, are minor changes that will not impact the
implementation of the I/M testing to be performed and thus will not
impact emissions. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the change
to Rule 391-3-20-.09 into Georgia's SIP.

H. Rule 391-3-20-.10, ``Certificates of Authorization''

    Rule 391-3-20-.10, ``Certificates of Authorization,'' is being
amended to use the acronym for Georgia Analyzer System and deleting
spelling out the words. EPA has reviewed the changes and has made the
preliminary determination that these minor changes do not impact
emissions and are consistent with the I/M program requirements.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the change to Rule 391-3-
20-.10 into Georgia's SIP.

I. Rule 391-3-20-.11, ``Inspector Qualifications and Certification''

    Rule 391-3-20-.11, ``Inspector Qualifications and Certification,''
is amended to clarify that an inspector's certificate is valid for two
years from the date of issuance; to state that an inspector's
certificate application is due 30 days before the expiration of an
existing application; and to add language that a certificate will be
renewed on timely receipt of an application, if there is no cause to
deny a certificate; and clarify that it is the inspector that must pass
the written test. In addition, 391-3-20-.11 is revised to require
emissions inspectors to pass a practical (rather than hands-on) test,
and to have knowledge about conducting all parts of the inspection
(replacing the words ``can perform'').
    EPA has reviewed the changes and has made the preliminary
determination that these minor changes do not impact implementation of
the SIP, do not impact emissions, and are consistent with 40 CFR part
51 subpart S. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to
Rule 391-3-20-.11 into Georgia's SIP.

J. Rule 391-3-20-.13, ``Certificate of Emission Inspection''

    Rule 391-3-20-.13, ``Certificate of Emission Inspection,'' is
amended replace terms with standard terminology (for example
``Emissions Repair Form'' replaces ``repair information form''), to
provide the website address to obtain an Emissions Repair Form, and to
clarify that the Repair Watch Public Report is issued quarterly. EPA
has reviewed these minor changes and preliminarily finds that the
changes are SIP strengthening by providing additional clarity to the
SIP. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to Rule
391-3-20-.13 into Georgia's SIP.

K. Rule 391-3-20-.15, ``Repairs and Retests''

    Rule 391-3-20-.15, ``Repairs and Retests,'' is being amended by
replacing the term ``repair information form'' with standard
terminology of ``Emissions Repair Form.'' EPA has reviewed this change
and is preliminarily determining that it is a minor change that is SIP
strengthening by providing additional clarity to the SIP. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to approve this change to Rule 391-3-20-.15 into the
Georgia SIP.

L. Rule 391-3-20-.17, ``Waivers''

    Rule 391-3-20-.17, ``Waivers,'' is revised to specify the dollar
amount of expenditures that must be made annually in order to qualify
for a waiver from the I/M program requirements, and language is added
to provide a web-address where the waiver amount will be posted. In
addition, language is added to require the issuer of a waiver to
visually inspect to confirm that repairs have been made.
    EPA has reviewed these minor changes and preliminarily finds that
the changes are SIP strengthening by providing additional clarity to
the SIP, are consistent with 40 CFR part 51 subpart S, and will not
impact emissions. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the changes
to Rule 391-3-20-.17 into Georgia's SIP.

M. Rule 391-3-20-.18, ``Sale of Vehicles''

    Rule 391-3-20-.18, ``Sale of Vehicles,'' is being amended to add
that no person shall sell a vehicle without a valid passing certificate
of emissions inspection if the vehicle will be registered in a covered
county. In addition, language imposing criminal and civil penalties is
removed.
    EPA has reviewed these administrative changes and determined that
do not impact emissions and are consistent with the 40 CFR part 51
subpart S. While the language imposing criminal and civil penalties is
removed, a valid passing certificate of emissions inspections must be
provided in order to register a vehicle for highway use. Since without
an emission certificate the vehicle cannot be registered, and without
registration, the vehicle cannot legally operate on highways, EPA does
not anticipate emissions increases associated with the removal of the
specific penalties previously listed in 391-3-20-.18.\10\ Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to approve this change to Rule 391-3-20-.18 into the
Georgia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Although not relied on for approval, EPA also notes that
the operation on highways without a certification of registration is
subject to Georgia Code Title 40 Motor Vehicle and Traffic
Subsection 40-6-15, which imposes civil and criminal penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

N. Other Minor Changes

    In addition, Georgia's March 15, 2019, SIP revision contains
several minor changes to Georgia's I/M Regulation 391-3-20. For
example, rule 391-3-20-.01 contains changes to numbering to reflect the
addition and deletion of several definitions, as described more fully
above; rule 391-3-20-.03, ``Covered Vehicles: Exemptions,'' contains
changes for grammatical purposes and to correct capitalization; and
rules 391-3-20-.01, 391-3-20-.09 and 391-3-20-.11 contain changes that
replace the term ``State Inspection'' with ``I/M'' program. Also,
changes are made to replace terms with acronyms. For

example, multiple rules include adding the acronym ``GAS'' or replacing
``Georgia Analyzer System'' with the acronym ``GAS;'' and 391-3-20-.13
substitutes the acronym ``EPA'' for ``U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.'' Further, the March 15, 2019, SIP revision contains a number
of changes to reflect changing technology, such as removing references
to hard copy manuals, since the material is now found within the GAS
program. EPA is making the preliminary determination that these minor
changes will not affect implementation of the SIP and thus will not
impact emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve these changes
into the SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final GA EPD rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Georgia Rules 391-3-20-.04, 391-3-20-.05, 391-3-20-.07, 391-
3-20-.08, 391-3-20-.10, 391-3-20-.13, 391-3-20-.15, 391-3-20-.18, and
391-3-20-.20, state effective on March 28, 2018, and Georgia Rules 391-
3-20-.01, 391-3-20-.03, 391-3-20-.06, 391-3-20-.09, 391-3-20-.11, and
391-3-20-.17, state effective on February 17, 2019, within Chapter 391-
3-20, titled ``Enhanced inspection and Maintenance'' to remove obsolete
references, clarify the State's I/M requirements, and update
terminology, including to reflect advances in technology. EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact
the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Proposed Action

    For the reasons explained above, EPA is proposing to approve
Georgia's March 15, 2019, SIP revision. Specifically, EPA is proposing
to approve the changes to Georgia's I/M Regulation 391-3-20 because
they are consistent with the CAA and 40 CFR part 51 subpart S.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, if
they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not propose to impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) nor
will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-09242 Filed 5-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P