From:  David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 1:25 PM To:  Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Allen Dittenhoefer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bill Osborn<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bryan Kresak<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Charles Jones<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Chris Hardin<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Coleen Davis<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dan Belack<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dave Hacker<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Fanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ed Dinsmore<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>James Hosfield<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janis Deitch<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jay Cornelius<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joe Hanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS>John Hill<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jonelle Scheetz<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Julianne Kurdila<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Katie Kistler<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Keith Nagel<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Krista Armentrout<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Marian Gammon<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mark Poling<EMAIL_ADDRESS>May, Jeffrey X<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mike Dzurinko<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Nicole Siviy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Parker Adams<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Patrick Smith<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Randy Wiler<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rich Zavoda<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Scott Kiechle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Solomon Nyathi<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Taylor Mackey<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tishie Woodwell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Traci Self<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Victoria Morton<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:  RE: Parent Company representatives and mailing addresses

Donna Lee:

Attached is what I believe is a complete and accurate ownership list.  I'm cc'ing the COETF on this transmittal, in case I've made an error.

For the sake of completeness on the ICR, can you send me and the COETF the current lists of facilities that have to complete the Enclosure 1 Questionnaire and that have to test per Enclosure 2?

Thanks, DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E. President American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute 25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER> <EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

<< 2016-EPA Coke Plant Ownershiplocation - COMPOSITE 040116.xlsx >>


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49953-49954]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20347]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0001; FRL-9999-91-Region 4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Escambia Wood--
Pensacola Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 announces
the deletion of 50 acres of the Escambia Wood--Pensacola Superfund Site
(Site) located in Pensacola, Florida, from the National Priorities List
(NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This partial
deletion pertains to 50 acres of former residential property in the
former neighborhoods of Oak Park, Escambia Arms, Herman & Pearl and
Clarinda Triangle, part of Operable Unit One (soils). The remaining
areas of Operable Unit One (about 50 acres) and Operable Unit Two
(groundwater) will remain on the NPL and are not being considered for
deletion as part of this action. The EPA and the State of Florida,
through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), have
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than five-year reviews and operation and maintenance, have been
completed. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.

DATES: This action is effective September 24, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0001. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the site information repositories. Locations, contacts,
phone numbers and viewing hours are:
    U.S. EPA Region 4, Superfund & Emergency Management Divison Records
Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303,<PHONE_NUMBER>
Hours of operation: Monday-Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    West Florida Genealogy Branch Library, 5740 N Ninth Ave.,
Pensacola, Florida, 32504.<PHONE_NUMBER> Hours of operation--Tuesday-
Saturday 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik Spalvins, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The portion of the site to be deleted from
the NPL is: 50 Acres of former residential property (in the former
neighborhoods of Oak Park, Escambia Arms, Herman & Pearl and Clarinda
Triangle) of the Escambia Wood--Pensacola Superfund Site, Pensacola,
Florida. A Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion for this Site was
published in the Federal Register (84 FR 35059) on July 22, 2019.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion was August 21, 2019. No adverse public comments were received,
and EPA will proceed with the partial deletion.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude further remedial
action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted
from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without
application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of portions of a
site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability, in the
unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: September 6, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

0
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the entry
for ``FL'', ``Escambia Wood--Pensacola'', ``Pensacola'' to read as
follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                State                        Site name               City/county                Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
FL..................................  Escambia Wood--          Pensacola..............  P.
                                       Pensacola.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS
  score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
 * * * * * * *
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-20347 Filed 9-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

To:
Margaret Sheppard , U.S. EPA
From:
Emily Herzog and Mark Wagner, ICF International
Date:
April 7, 2010
Re:
Summary of HFO-1234yf Emissions Assumptions (Deliverable under EPA Contract Number EP-W-06-008 Task Order 038, Task 06)

This memorandum summarizes the proposed emissions assumptions to be used in the sensitivity analysis of the revised Assessment of the Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic Communities and Local Air Quality.  As previously conducted, the baseline analysis will be based on Vintaging Model emission assumptions for HFC-134a while the sensitivity analysis will be based on the findings of Papasavva et al. as described in their 2009 paper Estimated 2017 Refrigerant Emissions of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFC-1234yf) in the United Stated Resulting from Automobile Air Conditioning.  The memorandum is organized as follows:
   1) Overview of Vintaging Model HFC-134a Assumptions
   2) Summary of Findings from Papasavva et al. (2009)
   3) Proposed Sensitivity Analysis Assumptions

Please contact Mark Wagner at<PHONE_NUMBER> with any questions or comments.

   1)      OVERVIEW OF VINTAGING MODEL HFC-134A ASSUMPTIONS
ICF used EPA's Vintaging Model to estimate potential emissions of HFO-1234yf, a new refrigerant to be used as a drop in replacement for HFC-134a in new MVAC systems.  ICF assumed that emissions of HFO-1234yf from all systems will be the same as emissions from commercially available systems.  The Vintaging Model emissions assumptions for HFC-134a from the MVAC sector are described below in table 1.

Table 1: HFC-134a MVAC Sector Assumptions[a]
                                  Assumption

                                     Unit
Vehicle lifetime
                                      12
                                     years
Light duty vehicle (LDV) charge size
                                      555
                                   g/vehicle
Light duty truck (LDT) charge size
                                      793
                                   g/vehicle
LDV market share
                                     58[b]
                                       %
LDT market share
                                     42[b]
                                       %
Percent of fleet retired each year
                                     8[b]
                                       %
Leak rate
                                       8
                                       %
Servicing leaks (annualized)
                                      10
                                       %
End-of-life loss rate
                                     42.5
                                       %
a VM IO file_v4.4_12.16.09.xls
[b] Number varies depending on the year.  Estimated average through 2050 is shown
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM PAPASAVVA ET AL. (2009)
Papasavva et al. (2009) reported on their team's research on the estimated emissions of HFO-1234yf from MVAC systems.  The general findings from Papsavva et al. (2009) are described in table 2 below.
TABLE 2: Summary of Findings from Papasavva et al. (2009)
                                  Leak Source
                                     Range
                                     Units
regular leaks
                                  13.6 - 14.1
g/vehicle/year
irregular leaks
                                      17
g/vehicle/year
service leaks
                                    40 - 70
g/vehicle/service
DIY service leaks
                                      160
g/vehicle/service
End-of-life emissions
                                  100 - 450
g/vehicle

Papasavva et al. (2009) noted that the sum of the average annual regular and irregular emissions per vehicle represents 5.6% of total refrigerant charge, assuming a typical sedan MAC with a 550 g charge.  They also noted that on average in the U.S., a vehicle goes for a MAC service once during its 9-year lifetime, so vehicle servicing accounts for between 4.4 and 17.8 g/y of annual refrigerant emissions.  Combined with regular and irregular annual losses, Papasavva et al. (2009) estimated annual leaks to be 35 - 48.4 g/yr or 6 - 8.8% of the original charge.
Based on their findings, Papasavva et al. (2009) then estimated total HFO-1234yf emissions for the year 2017.  Papasavva et al. (2009) developed two scenarios, a low leak scenario and a high leak scenario, both of which are described in table 3 below.

Table 3: Emission Estimates of HFO-1234yf in 2017
                                  Assumption
Low Leak Scenario
High Leak Scenario
                                     Units
Vehicle lifetime
                                       9
                                       9
years
Number of services
                                       1
                                       1
Services/lifetime
Percent of fleet serviced per year
                                      10
                                      15
%
Percent of vehicles serviced by a DIYer
                                       0
                                      25
%
Percent of fleet retired
                                       5
                                      10
%
Regular leaks
                                     13.6
                                13.6  -  15[a]
g/vehicle/year
Irregular leaks
                                      17
                                      17
g/vehicle/year
Professional servicing leaks
                                      40
                                      40
g/vehicle/service
DIY servicing leaks
                                      160
                                      160
g/vehicle/service
End-of-life emissions
                                      100
                                      450
g/vehicle
Total Emissions
                                     11.4
                                     24.7
thousand MT
a Assumes older vehicles have a leak rate that is 10% higher
PROPOSED SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
To accommodate for the findings of Papasavva et al. (2009), ICF will additionally run the HFO-1234yf emissions scenarios in the Vintaging Model (VM) using revised annual leak rate assumptions.  No changes will be made to the estimated vehicle fleet, the charge sizes of either LDV or LDT, or percent of fleet retired each year.  Additionally, no changes will be made to the end-of-life emission assumptions since the loss rate assumed in the VM (42.5%) falls within the range estimated by Papasavva et al. (2009) (100  -  450 g/vehicle or 18  -  81%).
As stated above, Papasavva et al. (2009) estimated annual regular, irregular, and servicing leaks to be 35 - 48.4 g/yr or 6 - 8.8% of the original charge.  Therefore, ICF proposes to use the following annual leak rate assumptions for the sensitivity analysis, as summarized in table 4 below.  Leak rate assumptions for the baseline scenario are also provided for comparison.

Table 4: Proposed Refrigerant Loss Assumptions for Baseline and Sensitivity Analysis
                                  Assumption
                 Emission Rate as a Percentage of Charge Size
                  Equivalent Emission Rate[b] (g/vehicle/yr)

                                  Baseline[a]
                             Sensitivity Analysis
                                  Baseline[a]
                             Sensitivity Analysis
Leak rate
                                      8%
                                     5.6%
                                      44
                                     30.8
Servicing leaks (annualized)
                                      10%
                                     3.2%
                                      55
                                     17.6
  Subtotal, annual leaks
                                      18%
                                     8.8%
                                      99
                                     48.4
End-of-life loss rate
                                     42.5%
                                     42.5%
                                      234
                                      234
[a] HFC-134a MVAC assumptions
[b] Assuming an average charge of 550 g/vehicle.

   2)      CHANGES IN EMISSION ESTIMATES
ICF has updated the Vintaging Model since 2009 to include the most up-to-date projects of growth and trends in transitions to alternatives in all industrial sectors.  The baseline values will be calculated using the updated version of the Vintaging Model.  Depending on the year and scenario, these values may be higher or lower than those used in ICF's 2009 analysis.  The comparison below shows how emission values will be affected by these changes.  Overall, changes were relatively small, being less than 6% different from the earlier analysis.
Table 5:  Comparison of Emissions using Vintaging Model Outputs (in Metric Tons)
                        2009 Analysis vs. 2010 Analysis
Scenarios
                                     2020
                                     2030
                                     2040
                                     2050
Scenario 1- MVAC  (2009)[a]
                                     6,244
                                    28,327
                                    33,196
                                    36,478
Scenario 1- MVAC (2010)[b]
                                     6,244
                                    28,327
                                    33,093
                                    35,851
% change
                                     0.0%
                                     0.0%
                                     -0.3%
                                     -1.7%

Scenario 2 - All Ref/AC (2009)[a]
                                    10,345
                                    42,800
                                    55,349
                                    64,324
Scenario 2  -  All Ref/AC (2010)[b]
                                    10,501
                                    43,296
                                    55,070
                                    60,616
% change
                                     1.5%
                                     1.2%
                                     -0.5%
                                     -5.8%
   [a] ICF projected emissions of HFO-1234yf using special scenarios designed specifically for the August 4, 2009 analysis and run on the U.S. EPA Vintaging Model, Version VM IO File v4.1 5-19-09.
   [b] ICF projected emissions of HFO-1234yf using special scenarios designed specifically for the sensitivity analysis and run on the U.S. EPA Vintaging Model, Version VM IO File v4.4_12-16-09.

Specific changes to the Vintaging Model between May 2009 and December 2009 include the following:
   1. Historic sales figures of light-duty motor vehicles were updated based on more recent data from Ward's Automotive.  The updated data showed drops in new vehicle sales over the last few years.
   2. Project sales growth rates for new vehicles through 2030 were estimated based on the Energy Information Administration's report, An Updated Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as found in EIA's Annual Energy Outlook.  For the May 2009 version of the Vintaging Model, projections were estimated using a constant compound growth rate
   3. Average refrigerant charge sizes for light-duty motor vehicles were updated based on more recent information from Ward's Automotive and from Mobile AC Society (MACS) Worldwide's Air Conditioning Specifications Domestic and Import Cars, APVs, Vans and Light Trucks: 1990 through 1998 and A/C & Cooling System Specifications: 1996-2007.  The average charge size for a light-duty truck went down from 910 g to 793 g per truck.  The average charge size for other light-duty vehicles such as cars and vans went down from 690 g to 555 g per vehicle.
   The first two of these changes resulted in reductions in the estimated number of cars and vans, but not trucks, in 2020 from 253 million in the May 2009 version of the Vintaging Model to 190 million in the December 2009 version.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29189-29190]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11585]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 732 and 734

[Docket No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]
RIN 0694-AF47

Control of Firearms, Guns, Ammunition and Related Articles the
President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States
Munitions List (USML); Notifying the Public of the Transfer of
Jurisdiction of Certain Technology and Software as a Result of a
Vacated March 6, 2020 Injunction

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notification of vacated court order.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is publishing this
notification to the public concerning the transfer of jurisdiction of
certain ``software'' and ``technology'' as a result of action by the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacating a March 6, 2020
preliminary injunction by the district court in Washington v. U.S.
Dep't of State, No. 20-35391, 2021 WL 1621320, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS
12448 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2021). Pursuant to that decision, issued on
April 27, 2021, the mandate of the Ninth Circuit was issued on May 26,
2021 and district court's injunction was vacated. This notice also
includes guidance to persons with technology or software that was
previously retained on the U.S. Munitions List (USML) and controlled
under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) pursuant to
the March 6 district court order, but which is now subject to the
jurisdiction of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

DATES: The district court injunction of March 6, 2020 was vacated on
May 26, 2021. As of May 26, 2021, the ``technology'' and ``software''
that meets the criteria in section 734.7(c) is ``subject to the EAR''
and is no longer controlled under the ITAR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Clagett, Office of
Nonproliferation Controls and Treaty Compliance, Nuclear and Missile
Technology Controls Division, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Court Order of March 6, 2020

    On March 6, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington issued an order preliminarily enjoining the U.S.
Department of State from implementing or enforcing the final rule
entitled International Traffic In Arms Regulations: U.S. Munitions List
Categories I, II, and III, 85 FR 3819 (Jan. 23, 2020) ``insofar as it
alters the status quo restrictions on technical data and software
directly related to the production of firearms or firearm parts using a
3D-printer or similar equipment.'' Washington v. U.S. Dep't of State
(Case No. 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ).

Court Order of March 6, 2020 Vacated by Ninth Circuit Decision Issued
on April 27, 2021

    On April 27, 2021, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 20-35391) issued a decision that
vacated the district court's order enjoining the Department of State's
Final Rule removing 3D-printed guns and their associated files from the
USML; however, the preliminary injunction remained in effect until the
mandate of the Ninth Circuit for this decision was issued on May 26,
2021. Until the entry of the mandate, all persons engaged in
manufacturing, exporting, temporarily importing, brokering, or
furnishing defense services related to `technical data and software
directly related to the production of firearms or firearm parts using a
3D-printer or similar equipment' were required to treat such technical
data and software as listed on the USML and controlled by the ITAR.
    On May 26, 2021, the mandate of the Ninth Circuit was issued, and
the entirety of the Department of State's final rule published in the
Federal Register at 85 FR 3819 went into effect.
    As a result of the vacatur of the injunction, any request for
licenses of ``technology'' and ``software'' that fall under the U.S.
Department of Commerce regulations, 15 CFR 732.2(b) and 734.7(c) (added
by the Commerce January 23, 2020 rule, entitled Control of Firearms,
Guns, Ammunition and Related Articles the President Determines No
Longer Warrant Control Under the USML; 85 FR 4136, Jan. 23, 2020),
should be directed to the U.S. Department of Commerce because this
``technology'' and ``software'' are subject to the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR).
    BIS strongly encourages any person with ``technology'' or
``software'' that may meet the criteria in section 734.7(c) of the EAR
to review those provisions in the Commerce January 23, 2020 rule
closely, as well as all other applicable EAR provisions. In
anticipation of the dismissal of the case, BIS updated Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs) posted on the BIS website to add twelve FAQs to assist
public understanding of section 734.7(c), including addressing
application questions. These FAQs are available on the BIS website at
https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/policy-guidance/2572-faqs-for-the-commerce-category-i-iii-firearms-rule-posted-on-bis-website-7-7-20/file. For instance, those FAQs make clear that a BIS license is
required prior to posting on the internet of ``any file, including any
CAD file, that can be processed by a software program into an
electronic format, such as a CAM file, with no or minimal additional
information or manipulation from the operator(s), and that . . . once
converted will be in an executable code for the production of a firearm
frame or receiver or complete firearm.''
    BIS also strongly encourages any person with questions regarding
section 734.7(c), which they believe are not addressed sufficiently in
the FAQs on the BIS website, to contact BIS for additional guidance.
See the BIS contact information under the For Further Information
Contact section of this notice. In addition, if a person is unsure
whether the criteria of section 734.7(c) are met, including whether the
``technology'' or ``software'' is ready for insertion into a computer
numerically controlled machine tool, additive manufacturing equipment,
or any other equipment, persons with such ``technology'' or
``software'' can submit an official classification request to BIS using
the free online submission system, called SNAP-R, available on the BIS
website, to receive an official classification of the ``technology'' or
``software.'' For additional information on SNAP-R, see https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/licensing/simplified-network-application-process-redesign-snap-r/getting-started-with-snap-r. The person
submitting the official classification should note in the
classification request that the classification is being submitted to
determine whether the ``technology'' or ``software'' meets the criteria
in section 734.7(c).

Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-11585 Filed 5-27-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 70 (Thursday, April 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17848-17849]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4305-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

California; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4305-DR), dated March 16,
2017, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective March 16, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 16, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of California resulting from severe winter storms, flooding, and
mudslides during the period of January 18-23, 2017, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of California.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75

percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects
that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing
percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot
Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of
the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy J. Scranton, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of California have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    El Dorado, Kern, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Napa, Orange,
Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa
Barbara, Santa Cruz, Trinity, Tuolumne, and Yolo Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of California are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-07429 Filed 4-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9315-9317]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02817]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0013; FRL-9777-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Removal of the Mount Saint Mary's College 1979 Consent Order

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE) pertaining to the F. Keeler Company Boiler at
Mount Saint Mary's College. This revision removes the Mount Saint
Mary's College 1979 Consent Order (1979 Consent Order) from the
Maryland SIP because the coal-fired F. Keeler Boiler has been modified
by removing the coal-firing capability and converting the boiler to
fire natural gas with No. 2 fuel oil as backup. EPA is approving this
SIP revision because the 1979 Consent Order is no longer required as
the modified gas-fired unit can comply with all visible emission and
particulate requirements in the Maryland SIP, and this 1979 Consent
Order is no longer required to satisfy any applicable Federal
regulations or the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is being taken
under the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 9, 2013 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse written comment by March 11, 2013. If EPA
receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0013 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0013, Donna Mastro, Acting Associate
Director,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0013. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Pino, Air Protection Division,
Project officer,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The 1979 Consent Order provided an exception to Maryland's fuel
burning regulations for Mount Saint Mary's College to allow the
construction of a 25 million British Thermal Units (BTU) per hour coal-
fired boiler. The specific regulations of concern for the coal-fired
boiler at Mount Saint Mary's College were: COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B
(requirement for zero visible emissions); COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B(2)b
(requirement that particulate matter (PM) not exceed 0.03 grains per
dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)); COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B(2)c(2)
(requirement for dust collectors); and COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>D(2)
(prohibition of small solid-fuel boilers). MDE approved the
construction of the coal-fired boiler because the coal-fired boiler was
in a rural area and minimal impact on air quality was expected from
particulate emissions from the boiler. The boiler was required to meet
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>A (requirement not to exceed 20% opacity) and COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>B(3) (requirement that PM emissions not exceed 0.10 gr/
dscf). The 1979 Consent Order between Mount Saint Mary's College and
Maryland was approved by EPA into the Maryland SIP on March 18, 1980.
45 FR 17144 (approving the 1979 Consent Order into Maryland SIP because
no ambient air quality standards would be violated by operation of the
boiler). Subsequently, in January 1983, Mount Saint Mary's College
installed multicyclones on the boiler for additional control of PM.

II. Summary of the SIP Revision

    On November 19, 2012, MDE submitted a revision (12-05) to
remove the 1979 Consent Order from Maryland's SIP because the coal-
fired F. Keeler Boiler has been converted to fire natural gas with No.
2 fuel oil as backup. On July 18, 2000, MDE issued a permit to convert
the boiler to natural gas with No. 2 oil as backup fuel. The converted
gas-fired boiler is able to comply with all Maryland regulations,
including visible emissions standards. Therefore, the 1979 Consent
Order is no longer required and MDE has requested that it be removed
from the Maryland SIP.

III. Final Action

    EPA's review of the SIP revision submitted by MDE on November 19,
2012 indicates that the 1979 Consent Order is no longer required as the
modified gas-fired boiler is able to comply with all applicable Federal
regulations and the Maryland SIP. Therefore, EPA is approving the SIP
revision submitted by MDE on November 19, 2012 to remove the 1979
Consent Order. The 1979 Consent Order is no longer required to satisfy
any applicable Federal regulations or the CAA. EPA is publishing this
rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However,
in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will
be effective on April 9, 2013 without further notice unless EPA
receives adverse comment by March 11, 2013. If EPA receives adverse
comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rulemaking action
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this rulemaking action. Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of

the CAA. 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 9, 2013. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking.
    This action to approve a revision to the Maryland SIP to remove the
Mount Saint Mary's College 1979 Consent Order from the SIP 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, Particulate matter.

    Dated: January 25, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart V--Maryland

Sec.  52.1070  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing
the entry for Mt. Saint Mary's College.

[FR Doc. 2013-02817 Filed 2-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 226 (Friday, November 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59444-59446]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25510]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket Nos. FMCSA-2014-0214; FMCSA-2014-0215]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for five
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before December
24, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Nos. FMCSA-2014-0214; FMCSA-2014-0215
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket numbers for this
notice (Docket Nos. FMCSA-2014-0214; FMCSA-2014-0215), indicate the
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit
your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if
there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0214; FMCSA-2014-0215, in the keyword
box, and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the
``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box on the
following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an

individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0214; FMCSA-2014-0215, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for up to five years 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 five-year period. FMCSA
grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with
the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
    The five individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal
of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on
their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-
year period.

III. Request for Comments

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

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the five
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The five
drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have
maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical
issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV
during the previous two-year exemption period. In addition, for
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data.
For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the
State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an
adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to
safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes
that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of
two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing
without the exemption.
    As of October 24, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following individual has satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers: Jeffrey
M. Phillips (SC).
    This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0214. The
exemption is applicable as of October 24, 2018, and will expire on
October 24, 2020.
    As of October 15, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Thomas Avery, Jr. (NY)
Philip Stewart (CA)
Alan T. VonLintel (KS)
Keith T. White (PA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0215. Their
exemptions are applicable as of October 15, 2018, and will expire on
October 15, 2020.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable
treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must
submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each
driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to
comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or

regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person
operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based on its evaluation of the five exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy
and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). In accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two
years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: November 1, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-25510 Filed 11-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25347-25348]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2012-0054]

Petition for Amending Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated January 24, 2013, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for
an amendment of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the
Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 242,
Conductor Certification, in Docket Number FRA-2012-0054. On January 15,
2013, FRA granted Amtrak a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 242.403(b),
(c)(1)-(3), (d), (e)(1)-(4), (e)(6)-(11), and (f)(1)-(2). The relief
granted to Amtrak was contingent on its continued participation in the
Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS) pilot project.
    Amtrak, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and
the United Transportation Union seek to shield the reporting employees
and the railroad from punitive sanctions that would otherwise arise as
provided in selected sections of 49 CFR 242.403 to encourage conductor
reporting of close calls, and to protect conductors and Amtrak from
discipline or sanctions arising from the incidents reported pursuant to
the Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (IMOU).
    The proposed amendment extends the boundaries of inclusion under
Article 3 of the IMOU to all Amtrak-owned or -controlled properties
nationwide. The added locations include the Northeast Corridor (all
main track operations); the Hudson Line; the Michigan Line in New
Orleans, LA; and yards and facilities owned by Amtrak connected to
other carriers' tracks.
    Further, the amendment proposes changing the applicability
parameters under Article 3.1 of the Amtrak IMOU, affording C3RS
protection to NJ Transit train and engine service employees working in
Sunnyside Yard.

    Finally, the amendment proposes amending Article 6.4 of the Amtrak
IMOU pertaining to special additional criteria for close call event
reporting to allow coverage for events involving damage or derailment
below the FRA monetary reporting threshold.
    Amtrak's C3RS pilot project was initially approved by FRA on May
11, 2010. In Docket Number FRA-2010-0152, Amtrak requested and was
granted a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of 49 CFR Part
240, Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers, to
support its C3RS pilot project.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. If you do not have access to the Internet, please
contact FRA's Docket Clerk at<PHONE_NUMBER> who will provide necessary
information concerning the contents of the petition.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within May 20, 2013 of the date of this
notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 24, 2013.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-10075 Filed 4-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28936-28938]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11597]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69557; File No. SR-NSCC-2013-803]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and No Objection To Advance Notice To
Renew Its Existing Credit Facility

May 10, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 \1\ (``Clearing
Supervision Act'') and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934,\2\ notice is hereby given that on April 22, 2013,
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') advance notice SR-
NSCC-2013-803 (``Advance Notice'') as described in Items I, II and III
below, which Items have been prepared primarily by NSCC. This
publication serves as solicitation of comments on the Advance Notice
from interested persons and as notice of no objection to the Advance
Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance for the
Advance Notice

    NSCC is renewing its 364-day syndicated, revolving credit facility
(``Renewal''), as described in additional detail below.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the Advance Notice and
discussed any comments it received on the Advance Notice. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A and B
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

Description of Change
    As part of its liquidity risk management regime, NSCC maintains a
364-day committed, revolving line of credit with a syndicate of
commercial lenders (``Credit Facility''), which is renewed every year.
Under the existing Credit Facility, NSCC may borrow up to $7.43 billion
of an aggregate commitment of $9.33 billion.\4\ The terms and
conditions of the Renewal are specified in the Twelfth Amended and
Restated Revolving Credit Agreement to be dated as of May 14, 2013,
among NSCC, DTC, the lenders party thereto, and JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. as the administrative agent, and are substantially the same as the
terms and conditions of the existing Credit Facility agreement dated as
of May 15, 2012 among the same parties. However, the aggregate
commitments being sought under the Renewal increased to $16 billion. As
of April 19, 2013, NSCC and DTC had received aggregate commitments of
$10.121 billion towards the Renewal, of which all but $1.9 billion
would be the commitments to NSCC as a borrower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Credit Facility provides for both The Depository Trust
Company (``DTC'') and NSCC as borrowers, with an aggregate
commitment of $1.9 billion for DTC and the amount of any excess
aggregate commitment for NSCC. The borrowers are not jointly and
severally liable and each lender has a ratable commitment to each
borrower. DTC and NSCC have separate collateral to secure their
separate borrowings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This agreement and its substantially similar predecessor agreements
have been in place since the introduction of same-day funds settlement
at NSCC because NSCC requires same-day liquidity resources to cover the
failure-to-settle of its largest Member or affiliated family of
Members. If a Member defaults on its end-of-day settlement obligations,
NSCC may borrow under the Credit Facility to enable it, if necessary,
to fund settlement among non-defaulting Members. Any borrowing would be
secured principally by (i) securities deposited by Members in NSCC's
Clearing Fund (i.e., the Eligible Clearing Fund Securities, as defined
in Rule 4 of NSCC Rules and Procedures,\5\ pledged by Members to NSCC
in lieu of cash Clearing Fund deposits); and (ii) securities cleared
through NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement System that were intended for
delivery to the defaulting Member upon payment of its net settlement
obligation. NSCC's Clearing Fund, which operates as its default fund,
addresses potential exposure through a number of risk-based component
charges calculated and assessed daily. As integral parts of NSCC's risk
management structure, NSCC believes that the Credit Facility and the
Clearing Fund together help NSCC to have sufficient liquidity to
complete end-of-day money settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NSCC Rules and Procedures, Rule 4 (http://dtcc.com/legal/rules_proc/nscc_rules.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anticipated Effect on and Management of Risk
    NSCC believes that the Credit Facility is a cornerstone of NSCC
risk management, and its renewal is critical to the NSCC risk
management infrastructure. The Renewal does not otherwise affect or
alter the management of risk at NSCC.

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Advance Notice
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
Advance Notice.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Advance Notice and Timing for
Commission Action

    The clearing agency may implement the proposed change pursuant to
Section 806(e)(1)(G) of the Clearing Supervision Act if it has not
received an objection to the proposed change within 60 days of the
later of (i) the date that the Commission received the advance notice
or (ii) the date the Commission receives any further information it
requested for consideration of the notice.\6\ The clearing agency shall
not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection
to the proposed change.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(G).
    \7\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice
of the extension.\8\ A proposed change may be implemented in less than
60 days from the date of receipt of the advance notice, or the date the
Commission receives any further information it requested, if the
Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not
object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to
implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any
conditions imposed by the Commission.\9\ The

clearing agency shall post notice on its Web site of proposed changes
that are implemented.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(H).
    \9\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the advance
notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision 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 No. SR-NSCC-2013-803 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 No. SR-NSCC-2013-803. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the advance notice that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
advance notice between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on NSCC's Web site at
http://dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2013/nscc/SR-NSCC-2013-803.pdf.
    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 No. SR-NSCC-2013-803 and
should be submitted on or before June 6, 2013.

V. Commission Findings and Notice of No Objection

    Although Title VIII does not specify a standard of review for
advance notices, the Commission believes that the stated purpose of
Title VIII is instructive.\11\ The stated purpose of Title VIII is to
mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial
stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management
standards for systemically-important financial market utilities
(``FMU'') \12\ and providing an enhanced role for the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Board of Governors'') in the
supervision of risk management standards for systemically-important
FMUs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
    \12\ NSCC was designated as a systemically important FMU by the
Financial Stability Oversight Council (``FSOC'') on July 18, 2012.
FSOC 2012 Annual Report, Appendix A, http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
    \13\ 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act authorizes the
Commission to prescribe risk management standards for the payment,
clearing, and settlement activities of designated clearing entities and
financial institutions engaged in designated activities for which it is
the supervisory agency or the appropriate financial regulator.\14\
Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act states that the
objectives and principles for the risk management standards prescribed
under Section 805(a) shall be to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Promote robust risk management;
     promote safety and soundness;
     reduce systemic risks; and
     support the stability of the broader financial system.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission adopted risk management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act on October 22, 2012
(``Clearing Agency Standards'').\16\ The Clearing Agency Standards
became effective on January 2, 2013 and require registered clearing
agencies to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to meet certain
minimum requirements for their operations and risk management practices
on an ongoing basis.\17\ As such, it is appropriate for the Commission
to review advance notices against the objectives and principles for
risk management standards as described in Section 805(b), as well as
the applicable Clearing Agency Standards promulgated under Section
805(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Release No. 34-68080 (Oct. 22, 2012), 77 FR 66219 (Nov. 2,
2012).
    \17\ The Clearing Agency Standards are substantially similar to
the risk management standards established by the Board of Governors
governing the operations of designated FMUs that are not clearing
entities and financial institutions engaged in designated activities
for which the Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
is the Supervisory Agency. See Financial Market Utilities, 77 FR
45907 (Aug. 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Advance Notice is a proposal to enter into a renewed Credit
Facility, as described above, which is designed to help mitigate the
risk that NSCC would be under collateralized in the event of a
defaulting Member. Consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing
Supervision Act,\18\ the Commission believes the proposal promotes
robust risk management, as well as the safety and soundness of NSCC's
operations, while reducing systemic risks and supporting the stability
of the broader financial system, by maintaining a cornerstone to NSCC's
risk management system in a line of credit, in preparation for a
possible Member default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Commission Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11) regarding default
procedures,\19\ adopted as part of the Clearing Agency Standards,\20\
requires that registered clearing agencies ``establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable . . . establish default procedures that
ensure that the clearing agency can take timely action to contain
losses and liquidity pressures and to continue meeting its obligations
in the event of a participant default.'' \21\ Here, as described above,
the renewed Credit Facility should help NSCC continue to meet its
respective obligations in a timely fashion, in the event of a Member
default, thereby helping to contain losses and liquidity pressures from
that default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
    \20\ Release No. 34-68080 (Oct. 22, 2012), 77 FR 66219 (Nov. 2,
2012).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Commission Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) regarding measurement and
management of credit exposure,\22\ also adopted as part of the Clearing
Agency Standards,\23\ requires a central counterparty (``CCP''), of
which NSCC is one, to establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to

measure its credit exposures to its participants at least once a day
and limit its exposures to potential losses from defaults by its
participants under normal market conditions so that the operations of
the CCP would not be disrupted and non-defaulting participants would
not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or control.\24\
Here, as described above, NSCC's proposal to enter into a renewed
Credit Facility should help to minimize disruption to its CCP
operations, thereby limiting its and non-defaulting Members' exposures
to potential losses from a defaulting Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1).
    \23\ Release No. 34-68080 (Oct. 22, 2012), 77 FR 66219 (Nov. 2,
2012).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in Item III above, Section 806(e)(1)(G) of the
Clearing Supervision Act provides that a designated FMU may implement a
change contained in an advance notice if it has not received an
objection to the proposed change within the applicable 60 day
period.\25\ However, Section 806(e)(1)(I) allows the Commission to
issue a non-objection prior to the 60th day.\26\ If the Commission
chooses to issue a non-objection prior to the 60th day, it must notify
the designated FMU in writing that it does not object and authorize
implementation of the change on an earlier date.\27\ If the Commission
chooses to object prior to the 60th day, it must similarly notify the
designated FMU.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(G).
    \26\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I).
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ 12. U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC requested that the
Commission notify NSCC, under Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the Clearing
Supervision Act, that the Commission has no objection to the Advance
Notice no later than Friday, May 10, 2013, two business days before the
existing Credit Facility is set to expire on Tuesday, May 14, 2013, to
ensure that there is no period of time that NSCC operates without the
Credit Facility.
    For the reasons stated above, the Commission does not object to the
Advance Notice.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the
Clearing Supervision Act,\29\ that the Commission does not object to
the change described in advance notice SR-NSCC-2013-803 and that NSCC
be and hereby is authorized to implement the change as of the date of
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I).

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11597 Filed 5-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P