[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78322-78325]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32220]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65940; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-162]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols

December 12, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 1, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the single contra-side order Rebates
and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols in Section
I, Part A of the Exchange's Fee Schedule. The Exchange also proposes to
amend the rebates and fees applicable to electronic auctions and the
opening process.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov 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 Section I of
the Fee Schedule, entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing
Liquidity in Select Symbols,'' at Part A, entitled ``Single contra-side
orders,'' to amend certain Rebates for Adding Liquidity and Fees for
Removing Liquidity to both attract additional order flow to the
Exchange and recoup costs for offering certain rebates to attract
liquidity.
    Currently, Section I of the Fee Schedule applies to certain select
symbols.\3\ Section I is comprised of a Part A, single contra-side
order fees, and a Part B, Complex Order fees.\4\ By way of example of
the application of Parts A and B, if one component of a Complex Order
is a buy order that trades with a sell order, the sell order is a
``simple'' or non-Complex Order subject to the fees in Part A of
Section I of the Fee Schedule and the buy order is a Complex Order
subject to the fees in Part B of Section I of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Select symbols shall be defined as options overlying the
following symbols: AA, AAPL, ABX, AIG, ALL, AMD, AMR, AMZN, AXP,
BAC, BRCD, C, CAT, CIEN, CSCO, DELL, DIA, DRYS, EBAY, EK, F, FAS,
FAZ, FXI, GDX, GE, GLD, GLW, GS, HAL, IBM, INTC, IWM, JPM, LVS, MGM,
MSFT, MU, NEM, NOK, NVDA, ORCL, PFE, PG, POT, QCOM, QQQ, RIG, RIMM,
RMBS, SBUX, SDS, SIRI, SKF, SLV, SLW, SMH, SNDK, SPY, T, TBT, TZA,
UAL, UNG, USO, UUP, UYG, V, VALE, VXX, VZ, WYNN, X, XLF, XOM, XOP,
XRX and YHOO (``Select Symbols''). These symbols are Multiply-
Listed.
    \4\ The Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
Select Symbols will continue to apply only to electronic orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to amend the rebates and fees for
electronic auctions and the opening process by defining the electronic
auctions and the opening process as either Complex or non-Complex and
applying Part B rebates and fees to the Complex electronic auctions and
Part A rebates and fees to the non-Complex electronic auctions,
including the opening process. The Exchange proposes these amendments
to align the fees for electronic auctions and the opening process with
other rebates and fees, as either Complex or non-Complex. The Exchange
is not proposing to amend the Complex Order fees in Part B, but does
propose a technical amendment to Part B as described below.
    There are currently several categories of market participants:
Customers, Directed Participants,\5\ Specialists,\6\ Registered Options
Traders,\7\ SQTs,\8\ RSQTs,\9\ Broker-Dealers, Firms and

Professional.\10\ Currently, the following rebates and fees apply to
Single contra-side orders:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Directed Participant is a Specialist, SQT, or RSQT that
executes a customer order that is directed to them by an Order Flow
Provider and is executed electronically on PHLX XL II.
    \6\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \7\ A Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') includes a Streaming
Quote Trader (``SQT''), a Remote Streaming Quote Trader (``RSQT'')
and a Non-SQT ROT, which by definition is neither a SQT or a RSQT. A
ROT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b) as a regular member or a
foreign currency options participant of the Exchange located on the
trading floor who has received permission from the Exchange to trade
in options for his own account. See Exchange Rule 1014 (b)(i) and
(ii).
    \8\ An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is
assigned.
    \9\ An RSQT is defined Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT
that is a member or member organization with no physical trading
floor presence who has received permission from the Exchange to
generate and submit option quotations electronically in options to
which such RSQT has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such
quotations electronically from off the floor of the Exchange.
    \10\ The Exchange defines a ``professional'' as any person or
entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s)
(hereinafter ``Professional'').

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Directed      Specialist, ROT,
                                                  Customer         participant      SQT and RSQT          Firm          Broker-Dealer     Professional
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebate for Adding Liquidity.................             $0.20             $0.25             $0.23             $0.00             $0.00             $0.20
Fees for Adding Liquidity...................              0.00              0.00              0.00              0.05              0.05              0.00
Fee for Removing Liquidity..................              0.25              0.33              0.33              0.45              0.45              0.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the rebates and fees that apply
to Single contra-side orders as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Directed      Specialist, ROT,
                                                  Customer         participant      SQT and RSQT          Firm          Broker-Dealer     Professional
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebate for Adding Liquidity.................             $0.26             $0.23             $0.23             $0.00             $0.00             $0.26
Fees for Adding Liquidity...................              0.00              0.00              0.00              0.05              0.05              0.00
Fee for Removing Liquidity..................              0.29              0.35              0.37              0.45              0.45              0.45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange is proposing to amend its rebates and
fees applicable to electronic auctions and the opening process. To add
clarity to the rebates and fees surrounding electronic auctions and the
opening process, the Exchange proposes to amend the text of the Fee
Schedule to define ``Complex electronic auctions'' and ``non-Complex
electronic auctions.'' The Exchange proposes to define a ``Complex
electronic auction'' as one that includes, but is not limited to COLA.
The Exchange proposes to define a ``non-Complex electronic auction'' as
one that includes the Quote and Market Exhaust auction.\11\ The
Exchange also proposes to include the opening process within the
definition of ``non-Complex electronic auction'' for purposes of
assessing the Rebate for Adding Liquidity and the Fees for Removing
Liquidity. The Exchange proposes to delete the current text related to
the applicability of the Customer Rebate for Adding Liquidity and the
Fees for Removing Liquidity in Part C and instead replace that text
with an explanation of the rebates and fees as it relates to Complex or
non-Complex electronic auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ While PIXL is a non-Complex electronic auction, it is
covered by a different pricing scheme. See Section IV of the
Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, a Customer Complex Order receives a Rebate for Adding
Liquidity (as set forth in Part B) as part of a Complex Order Live
Auction (''COLA''). Excluding COLA, during all other electronic
auctions and the Exchange's opening process, a Customer Complex Order
receives a Rebate for Adding Liquidity (as set forth in Part B) when
such Customer Complex Order is executed against a non-Customer
(Specialist, ROT, SQT, RSQT, Professional, Firm or Broker-Dealer)
contra-side Complex Order, or a non-Customer individual order or quote.
For Customer orders that are not Complex Orders, a Customer receives a
Rebate for Adding Liquidity of $0.22 per contract for executions that
occur as part of an electronic auction, including but not limited to
the Exchange's opening process, except when contra to another Customer
order. A Customer will not be assessed a Fee for Removing Liquidity in
an electronic auction and during the Exchange's opening process. A
Directed Participant is assessed a Fee for Removing Liquidity of $0.25
per contract during the Exchange's opening process.
    The Exchange proposes to pay Customer executions that occur as part
of a Complex electronic auction a Rebate for Adding Liquidity as set
forth in Part B, as is the case today. Customer executions that occur
as part of a non-Complex electronic auction would receive the Rebate
for Adding Liquidity as set forth in Part A, except when contra to
another Customer order. Today they receive a rebate of $.22 per
contract. Customers will not be assessed a Fee for Removing Liquidity
for transactions that occur in either Complex electronic auctions or
non-Complex electronic auctions as is the case today.
    Currently, a Directed Participant is assessed a Fee for Removing
Liquidity of $0.25 per contract during the Exchange's opening process.
A Specialist, ROT, SQT and RSQT are assessed a Fee for Removing
Liquidity of $0.27 per contract during the Exchange's opening process.
Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer Fees for Removing Liquidity (as
set forth in Part B) apply to transactions resulting during the
Exchange's opening process. The Exchange now proposes to assess the
Fees for Removing Liquidity to all participants, except Customer, the
fees in Part A for transactions during the opening process.\12\ Today,
Professional, Directed Participant, Firm, Broker-Dealer and Specialist,
ROT, SQT and RSQT Fees for Removing Liquidity (as set forth in Part B)
will apply to transactions resulting from electronic auctions.\13\ The
Exchange now proposes to assess Professionals, Directed Participants,
Firms, Broker-Dealers and Specialists, ROTs, SQTs and RSQTs the Fees
for Removing Liquidity in Part B

for executions that occur as part of a Complex Order electronic
auction. The Exchange proposes to assess Professionals, Directed
Participants, Firms, Broker-Dealers and Specialists, ROTs, SQTs and
RSQTs the Fees for Removing Liquidity in Part A for executions that
occur as part of a non-Complex electronic auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange is defining the opening process as a non-
Complex Order auction.
    \13\ Today, electronic auctions include, without limitation, the
Complex Order Live Auction (``COLA''), and Quote and Market Exhaust
auctions. See Exchange Rules 1017 and 1082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to remove language in Part B of the
Section I. Specifically, the Exchange is removing ``in all Select
Symbols'' language. The entire Part B applies to all Select Symbols and
therefore the extra language is unnecessary.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \15\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Rebate for
Adding Liquidity for Customers is reasonable because the increase
should incentivize Broker-Dealers to route Customer orders to the
Exchange, which in turn should increase liquidity and benefit all
market participants. The Exchange believes that the rate change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply
uniformly to all Customers and also increase liquidity to the benefit
of all participants. The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the Rebate for Adding
Liquidity for Professionals to a rate that is equal to that of
Customer, which is also the highest rebate available for a Single
contra-side order. While the Exchange is increasing the Professional
rebate to $.26 per contract, it is also increasing the Professional Fee
for Removing Liquidity to the highest fee assessed for a Single contra-
side order along with Firms and Broker-Dealers. The Exchange believes
that it is reasonable to pay a lower rebate to Directed Participants
because market makers \16\ should benefit from increased Customer
volume as well as other Broker-Dealers engaged in proprietary trading.
In addition, the Rebate for Adding Liquidity is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory for Directed Participants because it is the
same for all market makers,\17\ $0.23 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange market maker category includes Specialists
(see Rule 1020) and Registered Options Traders (Rule 1014(b)(i) and
(ii), which includes Streaming Quote Traders or SQTs (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders or RSQTs (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)). The term ``Directed Participant'' applies to
transactions for the account of a Specialist, Streaming Quote Trader
or Remote Streaming Quote Trader resulting from a Customer order
that is (1) directed to it by an order flow provider, and (2)
executed by it electronically on Phlx XL II.
    \17\ The Exchange market maker category includes Specialists
(see Rule 1020) and Registered Options Traders (Rule 1014(b)(i) and
(ii), which includes Streaming Quote Traders or SQTs (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders or RSQTs (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase the
Customer Fee for Removing Liquidity because the Exchange is seeking to
recoup the cost associated with paying an increased rebate to
Customers. The Customer Fee for Removing Liquidity is also equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it would remain at a lower rate
as compared to other market participants. The Exchange believes that it
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to also
increase the Fees for Removing Liquidity for Directed Participants and
Specialists, ROTs, SQTs and RSQTs, to $0.35 and $0.37 respectively. The
Exchange is not increasing the rebate for market makers even though it
is increasing the fee because the Exchange does not believes that
Specialists, ROTs SQTs and RQSTs need to be incentivized to add
liquidity in the same way as a Directed Participant. As between these
market makers, Directed Participants are being assessed the lower fee
because Directed Participants, as compared to other market makers, have
higher quoting obligations.\18\ The Exchange believes it is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a Professional the
same Fee to Remove Liquidity as Firms and Broker Dealers. The Exchange
is increasing both the Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity and the Fee
for Removing Liquidity in its proposal. Also, the Professional is
obtaining a rebate while Firms and Broker-Dealers do not receive a
rebate. This is the case with the Fee for Removing Liquidity in all
Select Symbols for Complex Orders.\19\ In addition, the Exchange's Fees
for Removing Liquidity are within the range of fees assessed by other
options exchanges.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Exchange Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and
Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options
Traders.''
    \19\ See Section I, Part B of the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
    \20\ See NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Rule 7050. See also NYSE ARCA,
Inc. Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend rebates and fees related to
electronic auctions and the opening process in order that the
applicability of the rebates and fees is consistent with whether the
electronic auction or opening process involves a Complex Order. The
Exchange proposes to pay rebates and assess fees for electronic
auctions and the opening process by defining each electronic auction as
either a Complex or a non-Complex electronic auction. Complex
electronic auctions would be paid the rebates and assessed the fees in
Part B and non-Complex electronic auctions would be paid the rebates
and assessed the fees in Part A. The opening process will be defined
for purposes of the fees and rebates as non-Complex and would be
subject to the fees and rebates in Part A.
    Therefore, the Exchange's proposal to eliminate the $.22 rebate for
single contra-side Customer executions that occur as part of an
electronic auction, including but not limited to the opening process,
except when contra to another Customer order and instead pay the
increased Rebate for Adding Liquidity in Part A is reasonable because
the Exchange will pay the rebate for a single contra-side order which
is $.26 per contract. The proposal is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Customer currently does not pay a Fee for
Removing Liquidity and would be awarded the highest rebate among all
market participants so long as the transaction is not contra another
Customer and this would continue to be the case. In the event that the
transaction is contra to another Customer, the rebate would not be paid
and also no fee would be assessed to remove liquidity.
    Similarly, the proposal to assess Professionals, Directed
Participants, Firms, Broker-Dealers, Specialists, ROTs, SQTs and RSQTs
for transactions that occur as part of an electronic auction, except
for COLA, the fees in Part A, instead of Part B is reasonable because
those auctions do not relate to Complex Orders and should therefore be
assessed the fees in Part A for single contra-side orders. The Exchange
believes that the proposal is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all other market participants, other than
Customers, will be assessed fees based on whether the auction involves
a Complex Order. The Exchange's proposal to assess the fees in Part B
for COLA is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because COLA is a Complex Order electronic auction and therefore the
fees in Part B, which relate to Complex Orders, are consistent with the
type of auction where the transactions take place. The Exchange also
believes the same is true for Customers with respect to

distinguishing between Complex electronic auctions and non-Complex
electronic auctions. In addition, the Exchange proposes to pay rebates
and assess fees for the opening process as a non-Complex auction. The
opening process would not involve a Complex Order and therefore would
be paid rebates and assessed fees consistent with the Exchange's
proposal to assess electronic auctions based on whether it relates to a
Complex Order. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory to pay the rebates and assess the fees
in Part A, related to single contra-side orders, for the opening
process.
    The Exchange believes that the technical amendments proposed herein
are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they
would add clarity to the Fee Schedule.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. The
Exchange believes that the fees it charges and rebates it pays for
options overlying the various Select Symbols remain competitive with
fees and rebates charged/paid by other venues and therefore continue to
be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to
direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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)(ii) of the Act.\21\ 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 shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-Phlx-2011-162 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-Phlx-2011-162. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference 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 No. SR-Phlx-2011-162 and should be
submitted on or before January 6, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32220 Filed 12-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 234 (Friday, December 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 78404]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26749]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Percentage Rates of Covered
Aviation Employees for the Period of January 1, 2021, Through December
31, 2021

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA has determined that the minimum random drug and
alcohol testing percentage rates for the period January 1, 2021,
through December 31, 2021, will remain at 25 percent of safety-
sensitive employees for random drug testing and 10 percent of safety-
sensitive employees for random alcohol testing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Vicky Dunne, Office of Aerospace
Medicine, Drug Abatement Division, Program Policy Branch (AAM-820),
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Room 806,
Washington, DC 20591; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Discussion: Pursuant to 14 CFR 120.109(b), the FAA Administrator's
decision on whether to change the minimum annual random drug testing
rate is based on the reported random drug test positive rate for the
entire aviation industry. If the reported random drug test positive
rate is less than 1.00%, the Administrator may continue the minimum
random drug testing rate at 25%. In 2019, the random drug test positive
rate was 0.731%. Therefore, the minimum random drug testing rate will
remain at 25% for calendar year 2021.
    Similarly, 14 CFR 120.217(c), requires the decision on the minimum
annual random alcohol testing rate to be based on the random alcohol
test violation rate. If the violation rate remains less than 0.50%, the
Administrator may continue the minimum random alcohol testing rate at
10%. In 2019, the random alcohol test violation rate was 0.114%.
Therefore, the minimum random alcohol testing rate will remain at 10%
for calendar year 2021.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you have questions about how the annual
random testing percentage rates are determined please refer to the Code
of Federal Regulations Title 14, section 120.109(b) (for drug testing),
and 120.217(c) (for alcohol testing).

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Brett A. Wyrick,
Acting Federal Air Surgeon.
[FR Doc. 2020-26749 Filed 12-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41613-41617]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14892]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2041]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal
Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates
listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Chief executive officer of                                    Online location of letter of map                            Community
         State and county          Location and case No.             community              Community map  repository                 revision                Date of  modification      No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:
    Maricopa.....................  City of Buckeye (20-   The Honorable Jackie A. Meck,   Engineering Department, 530    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 2, 2020..........       040039
                                    09-1324P).             Mayor, City of Buckeye, 530     East Monroe Avenue, Buckeye,   advanceSearch.
                                                           East Monroe Avenue, Buckeye,    AZ 85326.
                                                           AZ 85326.

    Maricopa.....................  City of Chandler (19-  The Honorable Kevin Hartke,     Transportation & Development   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 2, 2020..........       040040
                                    09-1713P).             Mayor, City of Chandler, 175    Department, 215 East Buffalo   advanceSearch.
                                                           South Arizona Avenue,           Street, Chandler, AZ 85225.
                                                           Chandler, AZ 85225.
    Maricopa.....................  City of Glendale (20-  The Honorable Jerry Weiers,     City Hall, 5850 West Glendale  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 2, 2020..........       040045
                                    09-1322P).             Mayor, City of Glendale, 5850   Avenue, Glendale, AZ 85301.    advanceSearch.
                                                           West Glendale Avenue,
                                                           Glendale, AZ 85301.
    Maricopa.....................  City of Peoria (20-09- The Honorable Cathy Carlat,     City Hall, 8401 West Monroe    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 2, 2020..........       040050
                                    1322P).                Mayor, City of Peoria, 8401     Street, Peoria, AZ 85345.      advanceSearch.
                                                           West Monroe Street, Peoria,
                                                           AZ 85345.
    Maricopa.....................  City of Surprise (20-  The Honorable Skip Hall,        Public Works Department,       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 9, 2020..........       040053
                                    09-1326P).             Mayor, City of Surprise,        Engineering Development        advanceSearch.
                                                           16000 North Civic Center        Services, 16000 North Civic
                                                           Plaza, Surprise, AZ 85374.      Center Plaza, Surprise, AZ
                                                                                85374.
    Maricopa.....................  Town of Fountain       The Honorable Ginny Dickey,     Town Hall, 16705 East Avenue   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 1, 2020..........       040135
                                    Hills (20-09-1325P).   Mayor, Town of Fountain         of the Fountains, Fountain     advanceSearch.
                                                           Hills, 16705 East Avenue of     Hills, AZ 85268.
                                                           the Fountains, Fountain
                                                           Hills, AZ 85268.
    Maricopa.....................  Unincorporated Areas   The Honorable Clinton L.        Flood Control District of      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 2, 2020..........       040037
                                    of Maricopa County     Hickman, Chairman, Board of     Maricopa County, 2801 West     advanceSearch.
                                    (20-09-1322P).         Supervisors, Maricopa County,   Durango Street, Phoenix, AZ
                                                           301 West Jefferson Street,      85009.
                                                           10th Floor, Phoenix, AZ
                                                           85003.
    Yavapai......................  Town of Prescott       The Honorable Kell Palguta,     Town Hall, Engineering         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 21, 2020.........       040121
                                    Valley (20-09-         Mayor, Town of Prescott         Division, 7501 East Civic      advanceSearch.
                                    0224P).                Valley, Civic Center, 7501      Circle, Prescott Valley, AZ
                                                           East Skoog Boulevard, 4th       86314.
                                                           Floor, Prescott Valley, AZ
                                                           86314.
California:
    Plumas.......................  Unincorporated Areas   The Honorable Kevin Goss,       Plumas County Courthouse, 520  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 9, 2020..........       060244
                                    of Plumas County (19-  Chairman, Board of              Main Street, Quincy, CA        advanceSearch.
                                    09-2233P).             Supervisors, Plumas County,     95971.
                                                           520 Main Street, Room 309,
                                                           Quincy, CA 95971.
    Riverside....................  City of Moreno Valley  The Honorable Yxstian A.        Public Works Department,       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       065074
                                    (20-09-0154P).         Gutierrez, Mayor, City of       14177 Frederick Street,        advanceSearch.
                                                           Moreno Valley, 14177            Moreno Valley, CA 92553.
                                                           Frederick Street, Moreno
                                                           Valley, CA 92553.
    Ventura......................  City of Thousand Oaks  The Honorable Al Adam, Mayor,   City Hall, 2100 East Thousand  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 8, 2020..........       060422
                                    (19-09-1687P).         City of Thousand Oaks, 2100     Oaks Boulevard, Thousand       advanceSearch.
                                                           Thousand Oaks Boulevard,        Oaks, CA 91362.
                                                           Thousand Oaks, CA 91362.
Florida:
    Duval........................  City of Jacksonville   The Honorable Lenny Curry,      City Hall, 117 West Duval      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       120077
                                    (20-04-0139P).         Mayor, City of Jacksonville,    Street, Jacksonville, FL       advanceSearch.
                                                           117 West Duval Street, Suite    32202.
                                                           400, Jacksonville, FL 32202.
    Pasco........................  Unincorporated Areas   Mr. Mike Moore, Chairman,       Pasco County Development       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 18, 2020.........       120230
                                    of Pasco County (19-   Pasco County, Board of County   Services Branch, 8731          advanceSearch.
                                    04-6976P).             Commissioners, 8731 Citizens    Citizens Drive, New Port
                                                           Drive, New Port Richey, FL      Richey, FL 34654.
                                                           34654.
Illinois:
    Kane.........................  City of Aurora (20-05- The Honorable Richard C.        City Hall, Engineering         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       170320
                                    2946P).                Irvin, Mayor, City of Aurora,   Department, 44 East Downer     advanceSearch.
                                                           44 East Downer Place, 3rd       Place, Aurora, IL 60505.
                                                           Floor, Aurora, IL 60505.

    Kane.........................  Unincorporated Areas   The Honorable Christopher       Kane County Government         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       170896
                                    of Kane County (20-    Lauzen, Chairman, Kane County   Center, Building A, Water      advanceSearch.
                                    05-2947P).             Board, Kane County Government   Resources Department, 719
                                                           Center, Building A, 719 South   South Batavia Avenue,
                                                           Batavia Avenue, Geneva, IL      Geneva, IL 60134.
                                                           60134.
    Lake.........................  Village of Riverwoods  The Honorable John W. Norris,   Village Hall, 300 Portwine     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jul. 17, 2020.........       170387
                                    (20[dash]05[dash]112   Mayor, Village of Riverwoods,   Road, Riverwoods, IL 60015.    advanceSearch.
                                    3P).                   300 Portwine Road,
                                                           Riverwoods, IL 60015.
Idaho:
    Ada..........................  City of Eagle (19-10-  The Honorable Jason Pierce,     City Hall, 660 East Civic      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       160003
                                    0717P).                Mayor, City of Eagle, City      Lane, Eagle, ID 83616.         advanceSearch.
                                                           Hall, 660 East Civic Lane,
                                                           Eagle, ID 83616.
    Ada..........................  Unincorporated Areas   The Honorable Kendra Kenyon,    Ada County Courthouse, 200     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       160001
                                    of Ada County (19-10-  Chair, Board of Ada County      West Front Street, Boise, ID   advanceSearch.
                                    0717P).                Commissioners Ada County        83702.
                                                           Courthouse, 200 West Front
                                                           Street, 3rd Floor, Boise, ID
                                                           83702.
    Allen........................  City of Fort Wayne     The Honorable Tom Henry,        Department of Planning         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 8, 2020..........       180003
                                    (20-05-2000P).         Mayor, City of Fort Wayne,      Services, 200 East Berry       advanceSearch.
                                                           Citizens Square Building, 200   Street, Suite 150, Fort
                                                           East Berry Street Suite 420,    Wayne, IN 46802.
                                                           Fort Wayne, IN 46802.
Indiana:
    LaPorte......................  City of La Porte (19-  The Honorable Tom Dermody,      City Hall, 801 Michigan        https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       180490
                                    05-4383P).             Mayor, City of La Porte, 801    Avenue, LaPorte, IN 46350.     advanceSearch.
                                                           Michigan Avenue, LaPorte, IN
                                                           46350.
    LaPorte......................  Unincorporated Areas   Ms. Sheila Matias, President,   LaPorte County Plan            https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       180144
                                    of LaPorte County      Commissioner, 555 Michigan      Commission, County             advanceSearch.
                                    (19-05-4383P).         Avenue Suite 202, LaPorte, IN   Government Complex, Suite
                                                           46350.                          503A, 809 State Street, La
                                                                                Porte, IN 46350.
    Scott........................  Unincorporated Areas   Mr. Robert Tobias, President,   Scott County Area Plan         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jul. 16, 2020.........       180474
                                    of Scott County (19-   County Commissioner District    Commission, 1 East McClain     advanceSearch.
                                    05-2009P).             1, Scott County Courthouse      Avenue, Suite G40,
                                                           Suite 130, 1 East McClain       Scottsburg, IN 47170.
                                                           Avenue, Scottsburg, IN 47170.
Michigan:
    Kent.........................  City of Kentwood (19-  The Honorable Stephen Kepley,   City Hall, 4900 Breton Avenue  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 9, 2020..........       260107
                                    05-5009P).             Mayor, City of Kentwood, P.O.   Southeast, Kentwood, MI        advanceSearch.
                                                           Box 8848, Kentwood, MI 49518.   49508.
    Wayne........................  Charter Township of    The Honorable Andrew Linko,     Charter Township Offices,      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 24, 2020.........       260218
                                    Brownstown (19-05-     Supervisor, Charter Township    21313 Telegraph Road,          advanceSearch.
                                    2936P).                of Brownstown 21313 Telegraph   Brownstown, MI 48183.
                                                           Road, Brownstown, MI 48183.
    Wayne........................  City of Taylor (19-05- The Honorable Rick Sollars,     Department of Public Works,    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 24, 2020.........       260728
                                    2936P).                Mayor, City of Taylor,          25605 Northline Road,          advanceSearch.
                                                           Municipal Offices, 23555        Taylor, MI 48180.
                                                           Goddard Road, Taylor, MI
                                                           48180.
Nebraska:
    Hall.........................  City of Grand Island   The Honorable Roger Steele,     Regional Planning Department,  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       310103
                                    (19-07-1260P).         Mayor, City of Grand Island,    100 East 1st Street, Grand     advanceSearch.
                                                           City Hall, 100 East 1st         Island, NE 68801.
                                                           Street, Grand Island, NE
                                                           68801.

    Hall.........................  Unincorporated Areas   The Honorable Pamela E.         Hall County Regional Planning  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       310100
                                    of Hall County (19-    Lancaster, Chair, Hall County   Department, 100 East 1st       advanceSearch.
                                    07-1260P).             Board of County Commissioners   Street, Grand Island, NE
                                                           Administration Building, 121    68801.
                                                           Street Pine Street, Grand
                                                           Island, NE 68801.
Nevada:
    Clark........................  City of Mesquite (20-  The Honorable Allan Litman,     Office of The City Engineer,   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 5, 2020..........       320035
                                    09-1320P).             Mayor, City of Mesquite, 10     10 East Mesquite Boulevard,    advanceSearch.
                                                           East Mesquite Boulevard,        Mesquite, NV 89027.
                                                           Mesquite, NV 89027.
    Nye..........................  Unincorporated Areas   The Honorable John Koenig,      Nye County Department of       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 1, 2020..........       320018
                                    of Nye County (20-09-  Chairman, Board of              Planning, 250 North Highway    advanceSearch.
                                    1321P).                Commissioners, Nye County,      160 Suite 1, Pahrump, NV
                                                           2100 East Walt Williams         89060.
                                                           Drive, Suite 100, Pahrump, NV
                                                           89048.
New Jersey:
    Union........................  Borough of Roselle     The Honorable Christine         Borough Municipal Building,    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       340472
                                    (20-02-0602X).         Dansereau, Mayor, Borough of    210 Chestnut Street,           advanceSearch.
                                                           Roselle, Borough Hall, 210      Roselle, NJ 07203.
                                                           Chestnut Street, Roselle, NJ
                                                           07203.
New York:
    Nassau.......................  Town of North          The Honorable Judi Bosworth,    Town Hall, 220 Plandome Road,  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Nov. 20, 2020.........       360482
                                    Hempstead (19-02-      Supervisor, Town of North       Manhasset, NY 11030.           advanceSearch.
                                    1366P).                Hempstead, Town Hall, 220
                                                           Plandome Road, Manhasset, NY
                                                           11030.
Texas:
    Dallas.......................  City of Dallas (19-06- The Honorable Eric Johnson,     Trinity Watershed Management   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 18, 2020.........       480171
                                    3571P).                Mayor, City of Dallas, 1500     Department, Flood Plain and    advanceSearch.
                                                           Marilla Street, Room 5EN,       Drainage Management, 320
                                                           Dallas, TX 75201.               East Jefferson Blvd. Room
                                                                                307, Dallas, TX 75203.
    Dallas.......................  City of Dallas (20-06- The Honorable Eric Johnson,     Trinity Watershed Management   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 8, 2020..........       480171
                                    0582P).                Mayor, City of Dallas, 1500     Department, Flood Plain and    advanceSearch.
                                                           Marilla Street, Room 5EN,       Drainage Management, 320
                                                           Dallas, TX 75201.               East Jefferson Blvd. Room
                                                                                307, Dallas, TX 75203.
    Dallas.......................  Town of Highland Park  The Honorable Margo Goodwin,    Engineering Department, 4700   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 18, 2020.........       480178
                                    (19-06-3290P).         Mayor, Town of Highland Park,   Drexel Drive, Highland Park,   advanceSearch.
                                                           4700 Drexel Drive, Highland     TX 75205.
                                                           Park, TX 75205.
    Tarrant......................  City of Arlington (18- The Honorable Jeff Williams,    City Hall, 101 West Abram      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       485454
                                    06-3756P).             Mayor, City of Arlington,       Street, Arlington, TX 76010.   advanceSearch.
                                                           City Hall, P.O. Box 90231,
                                                           Arlington, TX 76010.
    Tarrant......................  City of Fort Worth     The Honorable Betsy Price,      Department of Transportation   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 25, 2020.........       480596
                                    (18-06-3756P).         Mayor, City of Fort Worth,      and Public Works, 200 Texas    advanceSearch.
                                                           200 Texas Street, Fort Worth,   Street, Fort Worth, TX
                                                           TX 76102.                       76102.
Washington:
    Clark........................  City of Vancouver (20- The Honorable Anne McEnerny-    City Hall, 415 West 6th        https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 18, 2020.........       530027
                                    10-0406P).             Olge, Mayor, City of            Street, Vacouver, WA 98660.    advanceSearch.
                                                           Vancouver, City Hall, 415
                                                           West 6th Street, Vancouver,
                                                           WA 98660.
    Mason........................  Unincorporated Areas   The Honorable Sharon Trask,     Mason County Public Works,     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 16, 2020.........       530115
                                    of Mason County (20-   Chair, Board of                 100 West Public Works Drive,   advanceSearch.
                                    10-0789P).             Commissioners, Mason County,    Shelton, WA 98584.
                                                           411 North 5th Street,
                                                           Shelton, WA 98584.
Wisconsin:

    Brown........................  Unincorporated Areas   The Honorable Patrick           Brown County, Zoning Office,   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 18, 2020.........       550020
                                    of Brown County (19-   Moynihan, Jr., Chair, County    305 East Walnut Street,        advanceSearch.
                                    05-3386P).             Board of Supervisors, Brown     Green Bay, WI 54305.
                                                           County, 305 East Walnut
                                                           Street, Green Bay, WI 54305.
    Milwaukee....................  City of West Allis     The Honorable Dan Devine,       City Hall, 7525 West           https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 15, 2020.........       550285
                                    (20-05-2969X).         Mayor, City of West Allis,      Greenfield Avenue, West        advanceSearch.
                                                           7525 West Greenfield Avenue,    Allis, WI 53214.
                                                           West Allis, WI 53214.
    Waukesha.....................  City of Brookfield     The Honorable Steven V. Ponto,  City Hall, 2000 North Calhoun  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Sep. 24, 2020.........       550478
                                    (20-05-1573P).         Mayor, City of Brookfield,      Road, Brookfield, WI 53005.    advanceSearch.
                                                           2000 North Calhoun Road,
                                                           Brookfield, WI 53005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-14892 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 96178-96180]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0209]

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 12 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 November 11, 2016. The exemptions
expire on November 11, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
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. 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., e.t., 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 October 11, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (81 FR 70251). That notice listed 12 applicants' case
histories. The 12 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 12 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
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 12
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 age-related macular degeneration, amblyopia,
complete loss of vision, corneal scar, prosthetic eye, retinal scar,
and strabismus. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. Seven of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The 5 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of 3 to 17 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 12 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 for 4 to 43
years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes and
no drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 11, 2016
notice (81 FR 70251).

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 12 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes and no drivers
were convicted of a 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 12
applicants listed in the notice of October 11, 2016 (81 FR 70251.
    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 12 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 no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 12 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):
    Robert A. Andersen (CA), Daniel L. Bawden (IL), Kelly L. Ewing
(PA), Joseph G. Fischer (MO), Nylo K. Helberg (ND), J. Willard Keener
(PA), Billy R. McLaurin (DE), Jason R. Raml (SD), Alfred L. Robinson
(AR), Jerry L. Smith (VA), Danny R. Tate (VA), Larry K. Zielinski (OR).
    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: December 15, 2016.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-31556 Filed 12-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73203-73205]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28802]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0480; FRL-9919-76-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope
Valley Air Quality Management District and South Coast Air Quality
Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Antelope Valley Air Quality
Management District (AVAQMD) and South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter (PM) emissions from
fugitive dust and abrasive blasting. We are approving local rules that
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on February 9, 2015 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 9, 2015. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0480, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4125<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California
Air Resource Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                 Rule No.           Rule title              Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVAQMD.................................          403  Fugitive Dust.............        04/20/10        07/20/10
SCAQMD.................................         1140  Abrasive Blasting.........        08/02/85        11/12/85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 12, 1986 and August 25, 2010, EPA determined that the
submittal for SCAQMD Rule 1140 and AVAQMD Rule 403, respectively, met
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be
met before formal EPA review. We recognize that we are acting on Rule
1140 many years after California's submittal of the rule to EPA.
SCAQMD, CARB and EPA staff uncovered the outstanding submittal as part
of a broader review of California submittals in general. Despite the
age of this submittal, SCAQMD, CARB and EPA staff preliminarily
determined that it is still a legitimate submittal and, as discussed
below, appropriate to incorporate into the SIP.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved an earlier version of Rules 403 and 1140 into the SIP
on June 14, 1978 and September 28, 1981, respectively. The AVAQMD
adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version of Rule 403 on November
8, 1992, July 9, 1993 and February 14, 1997, but they were not
submitted to us.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    PM, including particulate matter of ten microns or less
(PM10) and particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less
(PM2.5), contributes to effects that are harmful to human
health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation
of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function,
visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section
110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM
emissions. AVAQMD Rule 403 is revised to establish a general 20 percent
opacity limit and requirements during high wind conditions, as well as
to conform the rule to AVAQMD's attainment status and to clarify rule
requirements. SCAQMD Rule 1140 limits particulate discharge, including
PM10 and PM2.5, into the atmosphere from abrasive
blasting activities and sets standards for the abrasives that may be
used in different blasting operations.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section
110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements
(see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control
requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or
greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). In addition, SIP
rules must implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM),
including Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), in moderate
PM10 nonattainment areas, and Best Available Control
Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in
serious PM10 nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 189(a)(1)
and 189(b)(1)). The AVAQMD does not regulate any PM2.5 or
PM10 nonattainment areas, so AVAQMD Rule 403 is not subject
to RACM requirements at this time. The SCAQMD regulates a
PM2.5 nonattainment area classified as moderate (see 40 CFR
81.305), so the RACM requirement applies to this area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA generally takes action on a RACM demonstration as part
of our action on the State's attainment demonstration for the
relevant NAAQS, based on an evaluation of the control measures
submitted as a whole and their overall potential to advance the
applicable attainment date in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACM/RACT or BACM/BACT requirements consistently
include the following:

    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, (revised January 11, 1990) (the
Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
    6. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004,
September 1992.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACM, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs
have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by January 9, 2015, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on February 9, 2015. This will incorporate these
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. 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, 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 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 (Public Law 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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.
    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. 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 February 9, 2015. 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 this 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 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 3, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
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)(165)(i)(B)(2) and
(c)(381)(i)(G)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (165) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) Rule 1140, ``Abrasive Blasting,'' amended on August 2, 1985.
* * * * *
    (381) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (G) * * *
    (3) Rule 403, ``Fugitive Dust,'' amended on April 20, 2010.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-28802 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P