[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69478-69481]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28418]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63246; File No. SR-C2-2010-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated:
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to PULSe Fees

November 4, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 28, 2010, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing
or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to adopt fees for
the use of a front-end order entry workstation, referred to as PULSe,
that will be a facility of the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the
Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to establish fees
relating to the use of the PULSe order entry workstation on C2, which
fees are modeled after the fees established for C2 affiliates Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') and the CBOE Stock
Exchange (``CBSX'').
    The PULSe workstation is a front-end order entry system designed
for use with respect to orders that may be sent to the trading systems
of C2.\5\ In addition to providing the capability to send orders to the
C2 market, the PULSe workstation will also provide a user with the
capability to send options orders to other U.S. options exchanges
(including CBOE) and stock orders to other U.S. stock exchanges
(including CBSX) through a ``PULSe Routing Intermediary'' as further
described below (``away-market routing''). Additionally, the PULSe
workstation functionality will include access to consolidated real-time
options and stock market data.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange represents that the PULSe workstation is merely
a new front-end system interface to existing C2 trading systems
(i.e., it is a new means of connecting to these existing trading
systems), and does not require any changes to the Exchange's
surveillance or communications rules. Further, there is no change
to, or impact on, the Exchange's market structure as a result of the
PULSe workstations.
    \6\ The workstation will also have the capability to enable a
user to send orders for commodity futures and commodity options to
designated contract markets and other venues of the user's choice at
which the user has trading privileges and to futures commission
merchants (each, an ``FCM'') and introducing brokers (each, an
``IB'') of the user's choice. The workstation may also have the
capability to enable a user to send orders in other non-security
products to one or more destinations of the user's choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PULSe workstation will be made available by Signal Trading
Systems, LLC (``STS''). STS is an affiliate of CBOE that is jointly
owned by CBOE and FlexTrade Systems, Inc. (``FlexTrade''), a technology
services provider. STS will grant licenses to use the workstation
directly to C2 Permit Holders (``Permit Holders'') and their customers,
including Sponsored Users. STS may

also determine to permit Permit Holders to make the workstation
available to their customers, including Sponsored Users, through the
use of a sublicense. However, whether the workstation technology is
obtained through a direct license or sublicense from STS, any order
routed to C2 through a PULSe workstation must be routed through a
Permit Holder or by a Sponsored User (whose orders are sponsored by a
Permit Holder).\7\ The Permit Holder will also be responsible for any
applicable fees, which are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The PULSe workstation may be made available by a TPH to its
customers on a pass-through basis (where orders pass through the
TPH's systems prior to reaching the Exchange) or a sponsored access
basis. To the extent that a TPH makes the workstation available to a
customer on a sponsored access basis, the customer would be
considered a ``sponsored user'' and the TPH-customer relationship
would be considered a Sponsoring Participant/Sponsored User
relationship subject to the requirements of Rule 3.15, Sponsored
Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes a monthly PULSe workstation fee to Permit
Holders of $350 per Permit Holder workstation per month for the first
10 PULSe workstations and $100 per Permit Holder workstation per month
for each additional PULSe workstation. As discussed further below,
Permit Holders may also make the workstation available to their
customers, which may include non-broker dealer public customers and
non-Permit Holder broker dealers (referred to herein as ``non-Permit
Holders''). For such non-Permit Holder workstations, the Exchange
proposes to introduce a flat fee of $350/month per workstation. In
instances where two or more Permit Holders wish to make a PULSe
workstation available to the same non-Permit Holder customer, the
Exchange is proposing to introduce a fee reduction. Under the
reduction, if two or more Permit Holders make the PULSe workstation
available to the same non-Permit Holder customer, then the monthly fee
will be $250 per workstation per Permit Holder. The Exchange also
proposes an away-market routing fee to the entering Permit Holder of
$0.10 per executed options contract (or equivalent share amount in the
case of stock) for away-market routing of orders through the PULSe
workstation.
    The Exchange notes that the PULSe workstation offers the ability to
route orders to any market, including CBOE. Therefore, to the extent a
C2 TPH that is also a CBOE TPH obtains a PULSe workstation through C2,
it is not necessary for that TPH to obtain a separate PULSe workstation
through CBOE to route orders to CBOE. When the PULSe workstation is
made available through C2 to a C2 TPH that is also a CBOE TPH, the
PULSe workstation, away-market routing, and Routing Intermediary fees
would be assessed by C2 only (e.g., the monthly fee to a C2 TPH for one
PULSe is $350 and the monthly fee for a CBOE TPH for one PULSe
workstation is $350; if a PULSe workstation is made available through
C2 to a C2 TPH that is also a CBOE TPH, the monthly fee would be $350,
not $700). To the extent a C2 TPH is also a CBOE TPH, the away-market
routing fee would not apply for the TPH's executions on C2 or CBOE
because the fee is only applicable for away-market routing. The TPH
would not be routing away, but instead would be submitting orders
directly to C2 as a C2 TPH or CBOE as a CBOE TPH, as applicable, where
the TPH's activity would be subject to the transaction fee schedule of
C2 or CBOE, respectively. However, to the extent a C2 TPH is not a CBOE
TPH, the away-market routing fee would apply to the C2 TPH's executions
on CBOE.
    The Exchange believes the fee structure represents an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees in that the same fees are applicable to
all users. The Exchange believes the workstation and routing
intermediary fees are competitive with fees applicable to similar
workstations that offer away-market routing services provided by other
exchanges. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable and appropriate
to reduce the monthly PULSe workstation fee when two or more TPHs make
a workstation available to the same non-Permit Holder because, while we
would still establish and maintain PULSe workstation technology
arrangements with each TPH, we also anticipate that the non-Permit
Holder's use of the workstation would be distributed among the TPHs. In
addition, the Exchange believes that the $0.10 away-market routing fee
is reasonable and appropriate in light of the fact that it is small in
relation to the value to the user of the PULSe workstation and its
extensive functionality, including its ability to facilitate the
routing of orders to any securities exchange and in relation to the
total costs typically incurred in routing and executing orders. The
Exchange believes it is not necessary to apply this fee to a C2 TPH's
executions on C2 (or to a dual C2 TPH/CBOE TPH's executions on CBOE)
because the TPH is not routing away. Instead the TPH is submitting
orders directly to C2 (or CBOE, as applicable) where the activity is
subject to the transaction fee schedule of C2 (or CBOE, respectively).
The Exchange also notes that use of the PULSe workstation and the away-
market routing functionality available through the PULSe workstation
are not compulsory. The services are to be offered as a convenience to
Permit Holders and would not be the exclusive means available to a
Permit Holder to send orders to C2, CBOE, CBSX or intermarket.
    The PULSe workstation may be configured by the Exchange to cause C2
and/or CBOE to be the default destination exchange(s) for individually
executed marketable option orders if C2 and/or CBOE is at the national
best bid or offer (``NBBO''), regardless of size or time, but will
allow any user to manually override C2 and/or CBOE as the default
destination on an order-by-order basis.\8\ Similarly, the PULSe
workstation may also be configured by the Exchange to cause CBSX to be
the default designation exchange for individually executed marketable
stock orders if CBSX is at the NBBO, regardless of size or time, but
will allow the user to manually override CBSX as the default
destination on an order-by-order basis. The workstation also
incorporates a function allowing option (stock) orders at a specified
price to be sent to multiple exchanges with a single click (``sweep
function''). The sweep function may be configured by the Exchange to
cause an option order to be sent to C2 and/or CBOE for up to the full
size quoted by C2 and/or CBOE if C2 and/or CBOE is at the NBBO.\9\
Similarly, the sweep function may be configured by the Exchange to
cause a stock order to be sent to CBSX for up to the full size quoted
by CBSX if CBSX is at the NBBO. Again, the away-market

routing functionality is to be offered as a convenience to Permit
Holders and would not be an exclusive means available to a Permit
Holder to send orders intermarket.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Nothing about the PULSe order routing functionality would
relieve any Permit Holder that is using the PULSe workstation from
complying with its best execution obligations. Specifically, just as
with any customer order and any other routing functionality, a
Permit Holder would have an obligation to consider the availability
of price improvement at various markets and whether routing a
customer order through the PULSe functionality would allow for
access to opportunities for price improvement if readily available.
Moreover, a Permit Holder would need to conduct best execution
evaluations on a regular basis, at a minimum quarterly, that would
include its use of the PULSe workstation.
    \9\ For example, if a Permit Holder were to enter an option
order to buy 250 contracts using the sweep function at a time when
C2 is at the NBBO for 100 contracts, the sweep function will be
configured to send an order for 100 contracts to C2, with the
balance of the order routed as specified by the Permit Holder
entering the order from the configurations offered by the PULSe
workstation. Nothing will require a person using the PULSe
workstation to use the sweep function, and, in this same example, if
the Permit Holder wished to route the entire order for 250 contracts
to an exchange other than C2 using the PULSe workstation, the Permit
Holder will be free to manually override C2 as the default
destination for the entire order.
    \10\ With respect to options (stocks), the Exchange also notes
that the away-market functionality in the PULSe workstation will not
displace the provisions of the Options Order Protection and Locked/
Crossed Market Plan (Regulation NMS), which will continue to apply
in the circumstances described in the Plan (Regulation NMS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To use the PULSe workstation to route to other markets, a Permit
Holder must either be a PULSe Routing Intermediary or establish a
relationship with a PULSe Routing Intermediary. A ``PULSe Routing
Intermediary'' is a C2 Permit Holder that has connectivity to, and is a
member of, other options and/or stock exchanges. If a Permit Holder
sends an order from the PULSe workstation, the PULSe Routing
Intermediary will route that order to the designated market on behalf
of the entering Permit Holder. For Permit Holder convenience, CBOE will
make available a list of PULSe Routing Intermediaries that provide
third-party routing services. The Exchange proposes that each PULSe
Routing Intermediary be charged a fee of $20 per PULSe workstation per
month for each PULSe workstation that is enabled to send orders through
that Routing Intermediary if another Permit Holder requests routing
functionality through that Routing Intermediary. The Exchange is
proposing that the PULSe Routing Intermediary fee be waived through
December 31, 2010, thus this fee will be assessed beginning January 1,
2011.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to introduce a fee for non-standard
services provided by STS. Non-standard services may include time and
materials for non-standard installations of or modifications to PULSe
to accommodate a Permit Holder's use of PULSe with other technologies.
The Exchange is proposing a fee of $350 per hour plus costs.
    The Exchange believes that the PULSe workstation will constitute a
``facility'' of C2 \11\ to the extent that it is used with respect to
orders for options and other securities.\12\ A portion of the fees
collected by C2 for the use of the workstation will be remitted to
STS.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange believes that the PULSe workstation will, in
the language of Section 3(a)(2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2),
constitute a property or service ``for the purpose of effecting or
reporting a transaction on an exchange * * *.''
    \12\ The capability of the workstation to initiate orders for
commodity futures and commodity options and other non-security
products to be sent to a designated contract market, FCM, IB or
other destination that does not constitute an ``exchange'' (as that
term is defined in Section 3(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(1), and used in
Section 3(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2), of the Act) will not
constitute part of the ``facility'' of CBOE.
    \13\ FlexTrade is not, and, at least initially, will not be
registered as a broker-dealer under Section 15(a) of the Act, 15
U.S.C. 78o. STS also will not, at least initially, be registered as
a broker-dealer under Section 15(a) of the Act. In this regard, we
note the following: (i) C2 (and/or its affiliate, CBOE) will be
primarily responsible for the marketing of the PULSe workstation. In
no event will FlexTrade have any role in marketing the PULSe
workstation. FlexTrade will not be a party to any agreements with
Permit Holders for the PULSe workstation. (ii) In contributing
services to STS, FlexTrade will be limited to providing software and
systems technology and maintaining proper technical functioning. C2
will be responsible for ensuring that STS's provision of the PULSe
workstation, as a facility of C2, meets C2's obligations as a self-
regulatory organization. (iii) Unless it becomes registered as a
broker-dealer under Section 15(a) of the Act, neither STS nor
FlexTrade will hold itself out as a broker-dealer, provide advice
related to securities transactions, match orders, make decisions
about routing orders, facilitate the clearance and settlement of
executed trades, prepare or send transaction confirmations, screen
counterparties for creditworthiness, hold funds or securities, open,
maintain, administer or close brokerage accounts, or provide
assistance in resolving problems, discrepancies or disputes related
to brokerage accounts. Should STS or FlexTrade seek to register as a
broker-dealer in the future, the Exchange represents that the
broker-dealer would not perform any operations without first
discussing with the Commission staff whether any of the broker-
dealer's operations should be subject to an Exchange rule filing
required under the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that FlexTrade engages and will engage in
business activities in addition to its provision of services to STS and
that these activities include providing other technology services to
broker-dealers.\14\ The Exchange also notes that STS may in the future
engage in business activities in addition to making the PULSe
workstation facility available, and that these activities may also
include the provision of other technology services to broker-dealers.
In this regard: (i) There will be procedures and internal controls in
place that are reasonably designed so that FlexTrade does not unfairly
take advantage of confidential information relating to PULSe in its
other business activities and so that STS will not unfairly take
advantage of confidential information relating to PULSe to the extent
that STS engages in any other business activities other than providing
the PULSe workstation. (ii) The books, records, premises, officers,
directors, agents, and employees of STS, with respect to the PULSe
workstation, as a facility of C2, will be deemed to be those of C2 for
purposes of and subject to oversight pursuant to the Act. (iii) Use of
the PULSe workstation will be optional. Permit Holders will not be
required to use the PULSe workstation to initiate their orders, and a
Permit Holder may use any available order entry system that it selects,
including one that it develops itself, for use to initiate its orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange notes that FlexTrade is the sole member of a
single member limited liability company named FlexTrade LLC, that
FlexTrade LLC is a registered broker-dealer, and that FlexTrade and
FlexTrade LLC each currently makes a front-end order entry
workstation named ``FlexTrader'' available. FlexTrade LLC is not a
Permit Holder of C2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act,\16\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
C2 Permit Holders in that the same fees and fee waivers are applicable
to all users of the PULSe workstation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of purposes of the Act.

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 proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, thereby
qualifying for effectiveness on filing pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \17\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
\18\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2010-007 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 C2-2010-007. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2010-007 and should be
submitted on or before December 3, 2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. 2010-28418 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41006-41009]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17714]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0272; FRL-9981-09-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District; Reasonably Available Control Technology
Demonstration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or ``District'') portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern the
District's 2014 demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). We are also taking final action
to approve into the California SIP the following documents that help
support the District's RACT demonstration: SJVUAPCD's supplement to its
2014 RACT SIP demonstration, which contains SJVUAPCD's negative
declarations where the District concludes it has no sources subject to
certain Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents and relevant
permit conditions to implement RACT level requirements for J.R.
Simplot's Nitric Acid plant in Helm, California (CA); and SJVUAPCD's
2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard--Chapter 3.4 and
Appendix C only. We are approving local SIP revisions to demonstrate
that RACT is implemented as required under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the ``the Act'').

DATES: This rule will be effective on September 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0272. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4122, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22908), the EPA proposed to approve
SJVUACPD's ``2014 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Demonstration for the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP)''
(2014 RACT SIP), submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) on July 18, 2014,\1\ for approval as a revision to the
California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SJVUAPCD adopted its 2014 RACT SIP on June 19, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the 2014 RACT SIP, our May 17, 2018 proposed rule
was also based on our evaluation of the public draft version of
SJVUAPCD's ``Supplement to the 2014 Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 8-hour
Ozone Standard'' (Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP) that was transmitted
by CARB on May 4, 2018, along with a request for parallel
processing.\2\ The District's Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP contained
relevant RACT permit conditions in a permit to operate for J.R.
Simplot's Nitric Acid plant in Helm, CA, and negative declarations
where the District concluded it had no sources subject to the following
CTG source categories: Surface coating of insulation of magnetic wire;
manufacture of synthesized pharmaceutical products; manufacture of
pneumatic rubber tires; leaks from synthetic organic chemical polymer
and resin manufacturing equipment; volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from manufacture of high-density polyethylene, polypropylene
and polyester resins; VOC emissions from air oxidation processes in
synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI); VOC
emissions from reactor processes and distillation operations in SOCMI;
and surface coating operations at shipbuilding and ship repair
facilities.\3\ We indicated that we would not take final action on the
Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP until CARB submitted the final adopted
version to the EPA as a SIP revision. On June 21, 2018, the SJVUAPCD
held a public hearing and adopted the Supplement to the 2014 RACT
SIP.\4\ On June 29, 2018, CARB

submitted the Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP to the EPA for approval
as a revision to the California SIP.\5\ The final adopted version of
the Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP includes non-substantive changes
from the public draft version that was the basis for our May 17, 2018
proposed rule. These changes include streamlining J.R. Simplot's
introductory section listing the plant's major equipment to just state
``Nitric Acid Plant''; restoring a permit condition that EPA Reference
Method 7 will be used to determine compliance with oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) limits; and removing reference citations to a local
rule and federal regulations that were inadvertently left in the
permit. The NOX emission limits remain unchanged from the
version of the permit included in our May 17, 2018 proposed rule. In
addition, when comparing the public draft version included in our May
17, 2018 proposed rule and the final version adopted by the District on
June 21, 2018, we noted minor editorial changes in the text preceding
the list of negative declarations. The primary substance of the
District's negative declarations, that is, recertification of three
prior negative declarations, and the adoption of five new negative
declarations, remain unchanged. We therefore consider these editorial
changes to also be non-substantive. On July 11, 2018, we found the
Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP, including the relevant operating
permit conditions to implement NOX RACT for J.R. Simplot's
Nitric Acid Plant in Helm, CA, and several negative declarations, met
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CARB's May 4, 2018 transmittal letter contained a public
draft version of the Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP along with a
request that the EPA provide parallel processing of the documents
concurrently with the state's public process. See footnote 1 in our
May 17, 2018 proposed rule.
    \3\ See Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP, Appendix B.
    \4\ On June 21, 2018, the SJVUAPCD Governing Board adopted
``Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to Address Federal
Clean Air Act Requirements for Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)''. Appendix A: ``J.R. Simplot Permit Conditions''
and Appendix B: ``Negative Declarations'', as contained in the
adopted document, are substantially similar to the versions
contained in the District's parallel processing request which the
EPA proposed to approve on May 17, 2018. We will reference the
District's June 21, 2018 adopted document as ``Supplement to the
2014 RACT SIP'' to maintain consistency with how this action was
referenced in our May 17, 2018 proposed rulemaking.
    \5\ As explained in our May 17, 2018 proposed rulemaking, the
EPA is following its regulatory procedures for parallel processing.
See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. These procedures allow the EPA to
approve a state's submittal, following parallel state and federal
comment periods, provided the final provision adopted at the state
level has no significant changes from the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also approving portions of SJVUAPCD's ``2016 Ozone Plan for
the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard'' (2016 Ozone Plan), which help to
supplement the District's 2014 RACT SIP. The plan was adopted by the
District on June 16, 2016, and submitted by CARB to the EPA on August
24, 2016, as a revision to the California SIP. Specifically, as
discussed in our May 17, 2018 proposed rule, Chapter 3.4 of the 2016
Ozone Plan states that ``the District updated the RACT evaluation and
included VOC sources in the evaluation in Appendix C.'' Appendix C of
the 2016 Ozone Plan, which is titled, ``Stationary and Area Source
Control Strategy Evaluations,'' includes evaluations of individual
rules for RACT. We are only approving Chapter 3.4 and Appendix C of the
2016 Ozone Plan in order to demonstrate VOC RACT for all applicable
sources for the 2008 NAAQS.
    As discussed in our proposed rule, the District's 2014 RACT SIP
contains its analysis of NOX RACT for the 2008 NAAQS. For
more background information and a more extensive discussion of the 2014
RACT SIP, the Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP, Chapter 3.4 and Appendix
C of the 2016 Ozone Plan, and our evaluation of them for compliance
with CAA RACT requirements, please see our proposed rule and related
technical support document.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received one anonymous comment that was outside
the scope of this rulemaking. The comment was not germane to our
evaluation of the submitted SJVUAPCD documents to demonstrate that the
District's stationary sources are subject to RACT requirements.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the
submitted documents as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving
the following documents into the California SIP: SJVUAPCD's 2014 RACT
SIP; the Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP including relevant permit
conditions for J.R. Simplot's Nitric Acid Plant in Helm, CA and
negative declarations for the CTG source categories: Surface coating of
insulation of magnetic wire; manufacture of synthesized pharmaceutical
products; manufacture of pneumatic rubber tires; leaks from synthetic
organic chemical polymer and resin manufacturing equipment; VOC
emissions from manufacture of high-density polyethylene, polypropylene
and polyester resins; VOC emissions from air oxidation processes in
SOCMI; VOC emissions from reactor processes and distillation operations
in SOCMI; and surface coating operations at shipbuilding and ship
repair facilities; and the 2016 Ozone Plan--only Chapter 3.4 and
Appendix C.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of certain
permit conditions for the J.R. Simplot Nitric Acid Plan in Helm, CA and
described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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, August 10, 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 16, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 12, 2018.
Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(449)(ii)(D),
(c)(496)(ii)(B), and (c)(507) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220 Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (449) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD).
    (1) SJVUAPCD ``2014 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Demonstration for the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP),''
dated June 19, 2014, as adopted by the SJVUAPCD on June 19, 2014.
* * * * *
    (496) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD).
    (1) SJVUAPCD ``2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,''
dated June 16, 2016, Chapter 3.4 and Appendix C only, as adopted by the
SJVUAPCD on June 16, 2016.
* * * * *
    (507) New regulations for the following APCD were submitted on June
29, 2018 by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD).
    (1) Permit #C-705-3-19, J.R. Simplot Company, Nitric Acid Plant,
Helm, CA, adopted by the SJVUAPCD, Resolution No.18-06-14, June 21,
2018.
    (ii) Additional materials. (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD).
    (1) SJVUAPCD ``Appendix B Negative Declarations For Proposed
Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to Address Federal
Clean Air Act Requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) June 21, 2018,'' containing negative declarations, as adopted by
the SJVUAPCD on June 21, 2018.

0
3. Section 52.222 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(8)(iii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.222  Negative declarations.

    (a) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iii) The following negative declarations for the 2008 NAAQS were
adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District on June 21, 2018, and submitted to the EPA on June 29, 2018.

             Negative Declarations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         CTG document No.                           Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA-450/2-77-033..................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                     Emissions from Existing Stationary
                                     Sources--Volume IV: Surface Coating
                                     of Insulation of Magnet Wire.
EPA-450/2-78-029..................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                     Emissions from Manufacture of
                                     Synthesized Pharmaceutical
                                     Products.
EPA-450/2-78-030..................  Control of Volatile Organic
                                     Emissions from Manufacture of
                                     Pneumatic Rubber Tires.
EPA-450/3-83-006..................  Control of Volatile Organic Compound
                                     Leaks from Synthetic Organic
                                     Chemical Polymer and Resin
                                     Manufacturing Equipment.
EPA-450/3-83-008..................  Control of Volatile Organic Compound
                                     Emissions from Manufacture of High-
                                     Density Polyethylene,
                                     Polypropylene, and Polystyrene
                                     Resins.
EPA-450/3-84-015..................  Control of Volatile Organic Compound
                                     Emissions from Air Oxidation
                                     Processes in Synthetic Organic
                                     Chemical Manufacturing Industry.
EPA-450/4-91-031..................  Control of Volatile Organic Compound
                                     Emissions from Reactor Processes
                                     and Distillation Operations in
                                     Synthetic Organic Chemical
                                     Manufacturing Industry.

EPA-453/R-94-032..................  Alternative Control Technology
                                     Document--Surface Coating
                                     Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship
                                     Repair Facilities
61 FR 44050 8/27/96...............  Control Techniques Guidelines for
                                     Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
                                     Operations (Surface Coating).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-17714 Filed 8-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20562-20564]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08729]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0301]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 23 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted March 7, 2015. The exemptions expire
on March 7, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

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

    On February 4, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (80 FR 6162). That notice listed 23 applicants' case
histories. The 23 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 23 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 23
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including optic nerve damage, neuropathy due to meningitis,
retinal detachment, phthisical cornea, amblyopia, macular scarring,
retinal scarring, central retinal artery obstruction, corneal scar,
conjunctional cyst, strabismic amblyopia, complete loss of vision,
chorioretinal scarring, prosthetic eye, and central retinal vein
occlusion. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed.

Sixteen of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The seven individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a range of three to 22 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 23 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from two to 35
years. In the past three years, none of drivers were involved in
crashes and none were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the February 4, 2015
notice (80 FR 6162).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 23 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes, and none were
convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a
record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 23 applicants listed in the notice of
February 4, 2015 (80 FR 6162).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 23 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the

following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments are
discussed below.
    Danielle Snyder is in favor of granting all drivers listed on the
notice an exemption from the vision standard.
    Alycia Chase's AP Government class at West Bloomfield High School
in West Bloomfield, MI is not in favor of granting the exemptions due
to their perceived risks to the public. As stated in this notice, FMCSA
has determined that granting these drivers an exemption from the vision
standard ``would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption.''

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 23 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Jason P. Atwater (UT), Barry W. Borger (PA), William W. Dugger (KY),
Steven D. Ellsworth (IL), Travis B. Giest (ID), Arlan T. Hrubes (WY),
Abdalla M. Jalili (IL), David M. Krause (WI), Stephen C. Martin (PA),
Troy L. McCord (TX), Ronald M. Metzger (NY), Gerald D. Milner, Jr.
(IL), Ali Nimer (IL), Richard A. Pierce (MO), Richard D. Pontious (OH),
Richard P. Rebel (ND), Kevin L. Riddle (FL), Mustafa Shahadeh (OH),
Charles P. Smith (MO), Timothy R. Tedford (IL), Sean E. Twohig (NY),
Melvin L. Vaughn (WI), Rick L. Wood (PA).

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: April 10, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-08729 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59217-59218]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20599]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0041; FRL-9949-56-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; RadNet (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``RadNet (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.
0877.13, OMB Control No. 2060-0015) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2016. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (81 FR
39042) on June 15, 2016 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 28,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0041, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Griggs, OAR/ORIA/NAREL, 540 South
Morris Ave., Montgomery, AL 36115; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: RadNet is a national network of stations collecting
sampling media that include air, precipitation, and drinking water.
Samples are sent to EPA's National Analytical Radiation Environmental
Lab (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama, where they are analyzed for
radioactivity. RadNet provides emergency response/homeland security and
ambient monitoring information on levels of environmental radiation
across the nation. All stations, usually operated by state and local
personnel, participate in RadNet voluntarily. Station operators
complete information forms that accompany the samples. The forms
request information pertaining to sample type, sample location, start
and stop date and times for sampling, length of sampling period, and
volume represented. Data from RadNet are made available regularly on
the Agency Web sites--Envirofacts and the EPA Web site www.epa.gov/radnet.
    Form Numbers: 5900-23, 5900-24, 5900-27, 5900-29.

    Respondents/affected entities: State and Local Officials.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 235 (total).
    Frequency of response: Biweekly requested for air filters, each
measureable event for precipitation, quarterly for drinking water.
    Total estimated burden: 3,726 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $139,843 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 3,815 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to the transfer of the milk
program to FDA and the elimination of the request to radiologically
screen air-filters prior to shipment to NAREL.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-20599 Filed 8-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5515-5517]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02890]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85130; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule as It Relates to Pricing for the Use of Certain
Routing Strategies

February 14, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 1, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposed rule change to amend the fee schedule applicable to the EDGX
equities trading platform (``EDGX Equities'') as it relates to pricing
for the use of certain routing strategies. The text of the proposed
rule change is attached as Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the EDGX
Equities fee schedule to change the pricing applicable to orders routed
using the ROUC routing strategy in connection with planned changes to
the System routing table.\3\ ROUC is a routing strategy offered by the
Exchange that is used to target certain low cost protected market
centers by routing to those venues after accessing available liquidity
on the EDGX Book and certain non-exchange destinations, and prior to
routing to other trading centers included

in the System routing table and posting to the EDGX Book, if possible.
The Exchange periodically changes the low cost venues targeted by the
ROUC routing strategy to ensure that the venues prioritized for routing
can be accessed at a low cost. Currently, four exchanges are included
in the System routing table as low cost protected market centers: Cboe
BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''), Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''),
Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX''), and New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'').
Pursuant to Rule 11.11(g), the Exchange has determined to modify System
routing table such that NYSE would no longer be listed as a low cost
protected market center where orders are first routed after seeking
available liquidity on the EDGX Book and certain non-exchange
destinations. In addition, the Exchange has decided to add NYSE
American LLC (``NYSE American'') and NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE
National'') as low cost protected market centers. These changes to the
System routing table are scheduled to be introduced on February 1,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``System routing table'' refers to the proprietary
process for determining the specific trading venues to which the
System routes orders and the order in which it routes them. See Rule
11.13(b)(3). The Exchange reserves the right to route orders
simultaneously or sequentially, maintain a different System routing
table for different routing options and to modify the System routing
table at any time without notice. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, orders routed using the ROUC routing strategy are
provided a rebate of $0.00150 per share when routed to BYX,\4\ charged
a fee of $0.00290 per share when routed to Nasdaq PSX (``PSX''),\5\ or
charged a fee of $0.00200 per share when routed to a non-exchange
destination.\6\ Orders routed to other markets may be subject to
different non-ROUC specific pricing. The Exchange proposes to add two
new fee codes, MX and NX, that relate to orders routed to NYSE American
and NYSE National, respectively, using the ROUC routing strategy. In
securities at or above $1.00, orders routed using the ROUC routing
strategy would be charged a fee of $0.00020 per share if executed on
NYSE American, and provided a rebate of $0.00200 per share if executed
on NYSE National. As proposed, the Exchange would not charge a fee or
provide a rebate for orders routed in securities priced below $1.00.
The proposed fees and rebates chosen for routing to these venues
generally reflect the current transaction fees and rebates available
for accessing liquidity on those markets.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See EDGX Equities Schedule of Fees, fee code ``BY.'' This
rebate applies to securities priced at or above $1.00. For
securities priced below $1.00, a fee equal to 0.10% of the dollar
value is applied instead. Id.
    \5\ See EDGX Equities Schedule of Fees, fee code ``K.'' This fee
applies to securities priced at or above $1.00. For securities
priced below $1.00, a fee equal to 0.30% of the dollar value is
applied instead. Id.
    \6\ See EDGX Equities Schedule of Fees, fee code ``Q.'' This fee
applies to securities priced at or above $1.00. For securities
priced below $1.00, a fee equal to 0.30% of the dollar value is
applied instead. Id.
    \7\ NYSE American currently charges a fee for removing liquidity
that is $0.00020 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00,
and 0.25% of the total dollar value of the transaction in securities
priced below $1.00. See NYSE American Equities Price List, I.
Transaction Fees. NYSE National currently provides a rebate of
$0.00200 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 for
members that achieve their taking tier. See NYSE National Schedule
of Fees and Rebates, I. Transaction Fees, B. Tiered Rates. Orders
that remove liquidity in securities below $1.00 are executed without
charge or rebate. See NYSE National, Schedule of Fees and Rebates,
I. Transaction Fees, A. General Rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, pursuant to fee code ``I,'' orders routed to EDGA that
are not otherwise eligible for routing strategy specific rates
specified in the fee schedule are provided a rebate of $0.00240. The
Exchange proposes that this rebate, which is a pass through of the
current rebate available on EDGA, be applied specifically to orders
routed using its low cost routing strategies--i.e., ROUC and ROUE.
Orders routed to EDGA using other routing strategies would continue to
qualify for routing strategy specific rates, which also largely reflect
the current rebate available for orders that remove liquidity on
EDGA,\8\ or in limited circumstances would be charged based on the
Exchange's default routing rate of $0.00300 per share.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Schedule of Fees, fee codes ``AA''
and ``RR,'' which similarly provide a rebate of $0.00240 for orders
routed to EDGA using the ALLB and DIRC routing strategies,
respectively.
    \9\ See EDGX Equities Schedule of Fees, fee code ``X.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
requirements of Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in particular, as it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
The Exchange believes the proposed routing fee changes are appropriate
as they reflect changes to the System routing table used to determine
the order in which venues are accessed using the ROUC routing strategy.
ROUC specifically targets certain equities exchanges that provide cheap
executions or rebates to liquidity removing orders, and routes to those
venues after trading with the EDGX Book and certain non-exchange
destinations, and prior to accessing liquidity that may be available on
other venues on the System routing table. The Exchange believes that
the proposed changes reflect the intent of members when they submit
routable order flow to the Exchange using the ROUC routing strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide special pricing for orders routed to NYSE American and NYSE
National using the ROUC routing strategy. As mentioned previously, the
Exchange is adding these two exchanges to its list of low cost
protected market centers, and wishes to provide the benefit of the
rebate or lower fee provided by those markets to EDGX members using the
ROUC routing strategy. The Exchange believes that these changes may
increase interest in the Exchange's ROUC routing strategy, in
particular, by passing on better pricing to EDGX members that choose to
enter such orders on the Exchange, thereby encouraging additional order
flow to be entered to the EDGX Book.
    The rebates provided to orders routed to NYSE National using the
ROUC routing strategy would be limited to order price at or above $1.00
in light of the fact that NYSE National does not provide rebates to
liquidity removing orders in securities priced below $1.00. For
securities priced below $1.00, the Exchange would charge no fee and
provide no rebate, which is equivalent to pricing on NYSE National.\12\
Without limiting the proposed rebate for NYSE National to securities
priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange would pay a significant rebate
that would not be recouped via a rebate earned from the execution
venue. The Exchange believes that is reasonable and equitable to limit
routing rebates to circumstances where the Exchange would actually earn
a rebate from the away venue in order to properly recoup the costs of
accessing liquidity on such markets. Similarly, the Exchange would
charge no fee and provide no rebate for orders routed to NYSE American
using the ROUC routing strategy in securities priced below $1.00.
Although such orders are charged a fee by NYSE American equal to 0.25%
of the total dollar value of the transaction, the Exchange has
determined to provide free executions as an additional inducement for
members to send their routable order flow to EDGA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
limit fee code I to orders routed to EDGA using the ROUC and ROUE
routing strategies, which are both intended as low cost routing
strategies. This fee code is a catchall for orders routed to EDGA and
applies to a limited subset of routing strategies that are not
otherwise subject to special pricing pursuant to other fee

codes. The Exchange believes that specifying the routing strategies to
which this fee code would be applied will increase transparency around
the pricing for orders routed using Exchange provided routing
strategies. With this change, only a limited number of routing
strategies would be subject to a higher default routing fee. The
Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to limit its pass
through rebates to specified routing strategies where the Exchange has
determined to offer such pricing as an inducement for members to
utilize such strategies. The Exchange's routing functionality is
offered on a purely voluntary basis and members that utilize routing
strategies that are not subject to such an incentive are free to route
their orders directly to EDGA, or to use other routing strategies where
the Exchange has determined to provide pass through rebates.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the proposed fees and
rebates would apply equally to all members that use the Exchange to
route orders using the associated routing strategy. The proposed fees
are designed to reflect the fees charged and rebates offered by certain
away trading centers that are accessed by Exchange routing strategies,
and are being made in conjunction with changes to the System routing
table designed to provide members with low cost executions for their
routable order flow. Furthermore, if members do not favor the proposed
pricing, they can send their routable orders directly to away markets
instead of using routing functionality provided by the Exchange.
Routing through the Exchange is voluntary, and the Exchange operates in
a competitive environment where market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues or providers of routing services if they
deem fee levels to be excessive.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
proposed routing fee changes are designed to reflect changes being made
to the System routing table used to determine where to send certain
routable orders, and generally provide better pricing to members for
orders routed to low cost protected market centers using the Exchange's
routing strategies. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow
to competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this
competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \14\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-004. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of this filing will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-004 and should be
submitted on or before March 14, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02890 Filed 2-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65220-65221]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27095]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.
    Extension: Rule 15c1-7, SEC File No. 270-146, OMB Control No. 3235-
0134.
    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c1-7 (17 CFR 240.15c1-
7) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for
extension and approval.
    Rule 15c1-7 states that any act of a broker-dealer designed to
effect securities transactions with or for a customer account over
which the broker-dealer (directly or through an agent or employee) has
discretion will be considered a fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive
practice under the federal securities laws, unless a record is made of
the transaction immediately by the broker-dealer. The

record must include (a) the name of the customer, (b) the name, amount,
and price of the security, and (c) the date and time when such
transaction took place.
    The Commission estimates that 481 respondents collect information
related to approximately 400,000 transactions annually under Rule 15c1-
7 and that each respondent would spend approximately 5 minutes on the
collection of information for each transaction, for approximately
33,333 aggregate hours per year (approximately 69 hours per
respondent).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 13, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27095 Filed 10-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63175-63176]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC14-7-000.
    Applicants: Astoria Energy II LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization to Dispose of
Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Treatment and
Privileged Treatment of Exhibit I of Astoria Energy II LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20131016-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: EC14-8-000.
    Applicants: Gilroy Energy Center, LLC, Creed Energy Center, LLC,
Goose Haven Energy Center, LLC, Calpine Peaker Holdings, LLC, Peaker
Holdings I, LLC,GEC Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Gilroy Energy Center, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20131016-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2399-004.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporation, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated submits
FirstEnergy submits compliance filing per 9/27/2013 Order in ER12-2399-
001, 002 to be effective 9/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131015-5376.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-102-002.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
NYISO Order No. 1000 Regional Planning Compliance Filing to be
effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131015-5427.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-107-004.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company submits Order
No. 1000 to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131016-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1851-004.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee, ISO New
England Inc.
    Description: New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits
Winter Reliability Compliance Filing to be effective 9/6/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131015-5377.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2266-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Winter Reliability Bid Results Compliance Filing of
ISO New England Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131015-5367.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-96-000.
    Applicants: Healthy Planet Partners Energy Company, LLC.
    Description: Healthy Planet Partners Energy Company, LLC submits
HPP MBRA Application to be effective 1/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131015-5390.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-97-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 10-15-13 Attach FF-4 to be effective
12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131015-5413.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-98-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc., Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc. submits 2013-10-15 Rate
Schedule 38 to be effective 12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131015-5418.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-99-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Public Service Company of Colorado submits 2013-10-15-
PSCo-TSGT-NOC of 329, 341, & 333 to be effective 12/14/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131015-5426.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-100-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Entergy
Services, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2013-10-15 Rate Schedule 40 EMI-
SMEPA to be effective 12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131016-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-101-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits Amended
LGIA with NextEra Desert Center Blythe, LLC to be effective 11/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20131016-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-102-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Dairyland Power Cooperative.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
2013-10-16 Dairyland Attachment O and GG filing to be effective 1/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 10/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20131016-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/13.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 16, 2013..
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24825 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                      US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD
                    January 14, 2015 PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

                           Internet Virtual Meeting
            The meeting will be conducted at the following website:
                     https://epa.connectsolutions.com/hsrb

                          Wednesday, January 14, 2015

                  HSRB WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/
                       Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                  Docket Number: EPA - HQ - ORD - 2014 - 0882

9:50 AM	HSRB members login online

10:00 AM*	Convene Public Meeting  -  Jim Downing, Designated Federal Officer, EPA Human Studies Review Board, Office of the Science Advisor
	Virtual Meeting operations  - Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH, HSRB Chair
            Introduction of Board Members  - Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH, HSRB Chair
	Opening Remarks  -  Toby Schonfeld, Ph.D., Human Subjects Research Review Official, EPA

Session 1:	Review and Approval of the HSRB Final Report of the November 5, 2014 Meeting

10:15 AM 	Public Comments
10:20 AM	Board Discussion of Draft Final Report

Session 2:	A published report: Ezratty, Veronique et al. (2014) Repeated Nitrogen Dioxide Exposures and Eosinophilic airway Inflammation in Asthmatics: A Randomized Crossover Study. Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 122, Number 8, August 2014. (MRID 49519201)

10:40 AM 	EPA Science Review Highlights  -  LT Jonathan Leshin, Ph.D. (OPP, EPA)
10:50 AM 	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA staff
11:05 AM	EPA Ethics Review Highlights - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
11:15 AM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), and EPA staff
11:30 AM 	Public Comments
11:35 AM	Board Discussion

Charge to the Board - Science:

   * Is this study scientifically sound, providing reliable data?
   * If so, is this study adequate for quantitative use in support of an inhalation risk assessment for the use of nitrogen dioxide as a medical equipment sterilant?

Discussants: Randy Maddalena, Ph.D. (George Fernandez, statistics)

Charge to the Board - Ethics:

   * Does the study meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26 subpart Q?

Discussant: Liz Heitman, Ph.D.

12:45 PM 	Lunch

1:30 PM	Reconvene  -  roll call

Session 3:	A published report: Spak, C.J. et al. (1989) Tissue Response of Gastric Mucosa after Ingestion of Fluoride. Karolinska Institute, Huddinge University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden. British Medical Journal. 298:1686-7. (MRID 49489101)

1:35 PM 	EPA Science Review Highlights  -  Jaime D'Agostino, Ph.D., (Health Effects Division, OPP, EPA)
1:45 PM 	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA staff
2:00 PM	EPA Ethics Review Highlights - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
2:10 PM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), and EPA staff
2:25 PM 	Public Comments
2:35 PM	Board Discussion

Charge to the Board - Science:

   * Is this study scientifically sound, providing reliable data?
   * If so, is this study adequate for quantitative use in support of an acute dietary risk assessment for fluoride?

Discussants:  Ken Ramos, M.D., Ph.D. (Ed Gbur, Ph.D., statistics)

Charge to the Board - Ethics:

   * Does the study meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26 subpart Q?

Discussant: Jewel Halanych, M.D., M. Sc.

Session 4:	A published report: Hansson, T. and Roos, B. (1987). The Effect of Fluoride and Calcium on Spinal Bone Mineral Content: A Controlled, Prospective (3 years) study. Sahlgren's Hospital, University of Gothenberg, Sweden. Calcified Tissue International. 40:315-317. (MRID 49489102)

3:25 PM 	EPA Science Review Highlights  -  Jaime D'Agostino, Ph.D., (Health Effects Division, OPP, EPA)
3:30 PM 	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA staff
3:45 PM	EPA Ethics Review Highlights - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
3:55 PM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), and EPA staff
4:10 PM 	Public Comments
4:15 PM	Board Discussion

Charge to the Board - Science:

   * Is this study scientifically sound, providing reliable data?
   * If so, is this study adequate for qualitative use in support of an acute dietary risk assessment for fluoride?

Discussants: Will Popendorf, Ph. D. (Jun Zhu, Ph.D., statistics)

Charge to the Board - Ethics:

   * Does the study meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26 subpart Q?

Discussant: Suzanne Rivera, Ph.D., M.S.W.

5:00 PM* 	Adjourn