[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28663-28666]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11500]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69540; File No. SR-BATS-2013-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend and Restate the Amended and
Restated By-Laws of BATS Exchange, Inc.

May 8, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 29, 2013, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the by-laws of the Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange intends to amend and restate its Amended and Restated
By-Laws (the ``Current By-Laws'') and adopt these changes as its Second
Amended and Restated By-Laws (the ``New By-Laws'').
    The amendments to the Current By-Laws include: (i) Providing that
the Board of Directors will consist of four (4) or more directors, with
the board fixing the actual number of directors from time to time by
resolution of the Board of Directors rather than fixing the number of
directors in by-laws; and (ii) clarifying the procedures for filling
vacancies on the Board of Directors, including as it relates to filling
vacancies on the board resulting from newly created directorships
resulting from any increase in the number of directors. The amendments
to the Current By-Laws will provide greater

flexibility to the Board of Directors of the Exchange by permitting the
board to increase or decrease the size of the board without the need to
further amend the by-laws, but in all cases subject to the
compositional requirements of the board set forth in the by-laws. The
amendments to the Current By-Laws would also (i) clarify the procedures
for filling vacancies for the Member Representative Director position,
and (ii) add a new requirement that the processes for filling any
director vacancies apply to vacancies created as a result of an
increase in the size of the board. The Exchange is not proposing to
amend any of the compositional requirements of the board set forth in
the by-laws. Thus, any vacancies filled pursuant to the New By-Laws
would be required to continue to comply with these requirements.
Number of Directors
    Article III, Section 2(a) of the Current By-Laws fixes the number
of directors of the Exchange at ten (10) directors. Article III,
Section 2(a) of the New By-Laws would amend Article III, Section 2(a)
to state that the Board of Directors of the Exchange shall consist of
four (4) or more members, the number thereof to be determined from time
to time by resolution of the Board of Directors, subject to the
compositional requirements of the board set forth in Article III,
Section 2(b). As a result of these compositional requirements, the
board must, at a minimum, be comprised of at least four (4) directors.
The Current By-Laws and the New By-Laws require that the Board of
Directors consist of the following: (i) one (1) director who is the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company; (ii) representation by Member
Representative Directors of at least twenty percent (20%) of the board
;\3\ and (iii) representation by Non-Industry Directors (including at
least one (1) Independent Director) that equals or exceeds the sum of
the number of Industry Directors and Member Representative Directors.
Under the Current By-Laws and the New By-Laws, the Chief Executive
Officer is considered to be an Industry Director. With the Member
Representative Director requirement of twenty percent (20%), the board
must include at least one (1) Member Representative Director. Thus, the
sum of the number of Industry Directors and Member Representative
Directors would equal two (2) directors. As such, the board must also
be comprised of at least two (2) Non-Industry Directors, bringing the
total minimum size of the board to four (4) directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because the number of Member Representative Directors must
be at least twenty percent (20%) of the board, it is required under
the Current By-Laws and the New By-Laws that if twenty percent (20%)
of the directors then serving on the board is not a whole number,
such number of Member Representative Directors must be rounded up to
the next whole number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The New By-Laws will provide the board with the flexibility to
increase or decrease the size of the board by resolution, rather than
amending the by-laws each time the board seeks to increase or decrease
the size of the board. The New By-Laws would continue to require that
the Board of Directors meet the compositional requirements of Article
III, Section 2(b).
Member Representative Director Vacancies
    A Member Representative Director is defined in relevant part in
Article I of the Current By-Laws as a Director ``elected by the
stockholders after having been nominated by the Member Nominating
Committee \4\ or by an Exchange Member pursuant to these By-Laws.''
Article III, Section 4 of the Current By-Laws in turn specifies the
precise process the Member Nominating Committee is required to follow
with the respect to the election and nomination of Member
Representative Directors. Article III, Section 4(c) of the Current By-
Laws specifies that the Member Representative Director nomination and
election process includes the following requirements for member
participation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Article VI, Section 3 of the Current By-Laws for a
detailed description of the Member Nominating Committee and its
responsibilities.

    Not later than sixty (60) days prior to the date announced as
the date for the annual meeting of stockholders, the Member
Nominating Committee shall report to the Nominating Committee and
the Secretary the initial nominees for Member Representative
Director positions on the Board that have been approved and
submitted by the Member Nominating Committee. The Secretary shall
promptly notify Exchange Members of those initial nominees. Exchange
Members may identify other candidates (``Petition Candidates'' for
purposes of this Section 4) for the Member Representative Director
positions by delivering to the Secretary, at least thirty-five (35)
days before the date announced as the date for the annual meeting of
stockholders (the ``Record Date'' for purposes of this Section 4), a
written petition, which shall designate the candidate by name and
office and shall be signed by Executive Representatives of ten
percent (10%) or more of the Exchange Members. An Exchange Member
may endorse as many candidates as there are Member Representative
Director positions to be filled. No Exchange Member, together with
its affiliates, may account for more than fifty percent (50%) of the
signatures endorsing a particular candidate, and any signatures of
such Exchange Member, together with its affiliates, in excess of the
fifty percent (50%) limitation shall be disregarded.
    As distinguished from the nomination and election of directors as
part of the Exchange's annual stockholders meeting, Article III,
Section 6 of the Current By-Laws specifies the procedures for filling
vacancies on the board when a director position becomes vacant prior to
the election of a successor at the end of such director's term, whether
because of death, disability, disqualification, removal, or
resignation. Under these circumstances, the Nominating Committee \5\
must nominate, and the stockholders must elect, a person satisfying the
classification for the directorship in compliance with the board
compositional requirements of Article III, Section 2(b) of the Current
By-Laws to fill such vacancy; provided, however, that if the remaining
term of office of a Member Representative Director at the time of such
director's termination is not more than six (6) months, during the
period of vacancy the board is not deemed to be in violation of the
board compositional requirements because of such vacancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Article VI, Section 2 of the Current By-Laws for a
detailed description of the Nominating Committee and its
responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Current By-Laws do not separately specify a process for filling
a Member Representative Director position that becomes vacant prior to
the election of a successor at the end such director's term. This lack
of specificity has led to some confusion regarding the exact process to
follow. In particular, the Current By-Laws would appear to require that
a Member Representative Director vacancy be filled by the Nominating
Committee; however, such a requirement would conflict with the Current
By-Laws' definition of a Member Representative Director, which requires
in all cases that such person be nominated by the Member Nominating
Committee or by an Exchange Member. The Exchange intended that its
Current By-Laws would require that the Member Nominating Committee
nominate one or more candidates to fill Member Representative Director
vacancies, which is consistent with precedent from other exchanges.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Article III, Section 3.5(b) of the Sixth Amended and
Restated Bylaws of Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; see
also Article II, Section 3 of the By-Laws of the NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC; see also Article II, Section 2.8(b) of the By-Laws of Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC; see also Article III,
Section 6(b) of the Amended and Restated Bylaws of EDGA Exchange,
Inc and Article III, Section 6(b) of the Amended and Restated Bylaws
of EDGX Exchange, Inc.

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

    As such, Article III, Section 6(a) and (b) of the New By-Laws would
clarify the procedures for filling Member Representative Director
vacancies on the board to require that the Member Nominating Committee
shall either (i) recommend an individual to the stockholders to be
elected to fill such vacancy or (ii) provide a list of recommended
individuals to the stockholders from which the stockholders shall elect
the individual to fill such vacancy. In addition, Article III, Section
6(a) and (b) of the New By-Laws would add the requirement that the
process for filling vacancies described therein shall be followed in
the circumstance where such vacancy is created as a result of an
increase in the size of the board. Generally, if the board has
determined to increase the size of the board, it is creating the new
directorship seat(s) because it has identified a qualified candidate(s)
who would improve the overall quality of the board. Under these
circumstances, time is of the essence and waiting to elect a
director(s) to fill a newly created directorship seat(s) at the next
scheduled annual stockholder meeting is not in the best interests of
the Exchange or its stockholders. As such, it's necessary that the New
By-Laws include a more streamlined process to fill any vacancies
created by increasing the size of the board. In the case of a director
filling a vacancy not resulting from a newly-created directorship, the
new director would serve until the expiration of the remaining term. In
the case of a director filling a vacancy resulting from a newly-created
directorship, the new director would serve until the expiration of such
person's designated term. In all cases, however, if the remaining term
of office of a director at the time of such director's vacancy is not
more than six (6) months, during the period of vacancy the board shall
not be deemed to be in violation of Article III, Section 2(b) because
of such vacancy. Under the Current By-Laws, this six-month grace period
applies only to Member Representative Director vacancies. Under the New
By-Laws, this six-month grace period would be expanded to apply to any
director vacancy, which is consistent with precedent from other
exchanges.\7\ Applying the six-month grace period to filling any
director vacancy, and not just a Member Representative Director
vacancy, would avoid the board being in violation of the board
compositional requirements of the by-laws during such vacancy. This, in
turn, would be less disruptive to the director election process by
permitting the vacancy to be filled at the next scheduled annual
stockholder meeting, rather than through an earlier-held special
stockholder meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Article III, Section 6(a) of the Amended and Restated
Bylaws of EDGA Exchange, Inc and Article III, Section 6(a) of the
Amended and Restated Bylaws of EDGX Exchange, Inc.; see also Article
III, Section 2(b) of the By-Laws of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder that are
applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ In particular, (i)
Article III, Section 2(a) of the proposed New By-Laws, which permits
the board to increase or decrease the size of the board by resolution,
and (ii) Article III, Section 6(a) and (b) of the proposed New By-Laws,
which clarify the procedures for filling vacancies on the board as
described above, are consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,
because they provide the board with measured flexibility in the
operation of the Exchange and clarify the method by which vacancies on
the board may be filled by stockholders, thereby enabling the Exchange
to be so organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the
purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its
members and persons associated with its members, with the provisions of
the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the
Exchange. While under the proposed New By-Laws the method of
determining the size of the board would change and the procedures for
filling vacancies on the board would be explained in greater detail,
the Exchange is not proposing to amend any of the compositional
requirements of the board set forth in the Current By-Laws. As such,
the board would be required to continue to comply with these
requirements. The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes
will provide greater flexibility to the Exchange in populating a Board
of Directors that includes directors with relevant expertise, while
continuing to ensure that the existing compositional requirements of
the Exchange are met. Finally, the Exchange again notes that the New
By-Laws, as proposed to be amended, are similar to the by-laws of other
exchanges with respect to the size of the board as well as the filling
of vacancies.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the New By-Laws do not directly affect competition
between the Exchange and others that provide the same goods and
services as the Exchange, since they do not affect the availability or
pricing of such goods and services. To the extent that the proposed
changes to the by-laws may be construed to have any bearing on
competition, the Exchange believes that the changes will promote
competition between the Exchange and other national securities
exchanges that do not have a restrictive number of directors set forth
in their respective by-laws and permit vacancies on the board to be
filled using similar procedures.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2013-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2013-024. 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 on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-BATS-2013-024, and should be submitted on or before June
5, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11500 Filed 5-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6459-6460]
[DOCID:fr08fe06-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-350-012]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Amending Stipulation
and Agreement

January 31, 2006.
    Take notice that on January 6, 2006, Colorado Interstate Gas
Company (CIG) tendered for filing a petition to the Commission to amend
the ``Stipulation and Agreement'' approved in Docket No. RP01-350-000,
et al., on August 5, 2002.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Colorado Interstate Gas Company, 100 FERC ] 61,154(2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CIG requests that the Commission approve the petition to amend the
Stipulation and Agreement on or before February 17, 2006, in order to
allow the parties to attempt to settle its next rate case before it is
filed.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 8, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-1658 Filed 2-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74810-74811]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA--2014-0129]

Notice of Buy America Waiver

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Buy America waiver.

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

SUMMARY: This notice provides NHTSA's finding with respect to a request
from the Texas Department of Transpiration, Traffic Safety Section
(TxDOT) to waive the requirements of Buy America. NHTSA finds that a
cost waiver of the Buy America requirements is appropriate for TxDOT to
purchase Light-Up Magnifier Loupes using Federal highway safety grant
funds because the cost of domestically produced products is twenty-five
percent more than the cost of the foreign-made products.

DATES: The effective date of this waiver is December 26, 2014. Written
comments regarding this notice may be submitted to NHTSA and must be
received on or before: December 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted using any one of the
following methods:
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the
Federal regulations Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All comments submitted in relation to this waiver
must include the agency name and docket number. Please note that all
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may also call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues, contact Barbara
Sauers, Office of Regional Operations and Program Delivery, NHTSA
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, contact Andrew DiMarsico,
Office of Chief

Counsel, NHTSA (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail to these
officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice provides NHTSA's finding that a
waiver of the Buy America requirements, 23 U.S.C. 313, is appropriate
for TxDOT to purchase of light-up magnifier loupes using grant funds
authorized under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) (section 405). Section 405(d) funds
are available for use by State highway safety programs to support
effective programs to reduce driving under the influence of alcohol,
drugs, or the combination of alcohol and drugs, including enforcement
efforts. 23 U.S.C. 405(d).
    Buy America provides that NHTSA ``shall not obligate any funds
authorized to be appropriated to carry out the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2097) or [Title 23] and administered
by the Department of Transportation, unless steel, iron, and
manufactured products used in such project are produced in the United
States.'' 23 U.S.C. 313. However, NHTSA may waive those requirements if
``(1) their application would be inconsistent with the public interest;
(2) such materials and products are not produced in the United States
in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory
quality; or (3) the inclusion of domestic material will increase the
cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent.'' 23
U.S.C. 313(b). In this instance, NHTSA has determined that a cost
waiver is appropriate for the items that TxDOT seeks to purchase using
Federal grant funds.
    TxDOT seeks a waiver to purchase 500 light-up magnifier loupes,
with 15X power lens with ultra violet and LED lights (Item SKU:220-
Loupe 4) from Lightgod.com. These items are not made domestically and
retail between $6.25-$7.00 each. The loupes are provided to law
enforcement officers that complete training in the Focus on Reducing
Impaired Driving Among Youth Program (FRIDAY) and Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Prevention Training Program (ADAPT). According to TxDOT, both
programs include a unit on the detection of altered and counterfeit
identifications used by juveniles who commit alcohol-related crimes.
The loupes are small and transportable and aid officers to detect
counterfeit driver's licenses by highlighting and magnifying the micro-
printing and holograms that are present on a legal state driver's
license.
    According to TxDOT, comparable domestic made loupes cost $31 per
unit in small quantities or $20 per unit in bulk quantities, with both
prices 25 percent more than the foreign made loupes than those made
domestically.\1\ TxDOT evaluated the place of manufacture for other
loupes, but TxDOT was unable to find any domestic made products that
met its requirements. NHTSA conducted its own assessment \2\ and
located one domestic manufacturer of loupes or pocket magnifiers.
ElectroOptics Inc. offers lighted pocket magnifiers with a
magnification range from 4X to 10X and unlighted jeweler loupes.
However, these products do not appear as robust or have the same
specifications required for use by TxDOT. Since it appears that loupes
that meet the requirements identified by TxDOT for use by its police
officers would cost more than 25 percent more than a domestic
manufacturer, the Buy America waiver is appropriate. NHTSA invites
public comment on this conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ TxDOT did not identify the manufacturers of the domestic
made loupes and NHTSA was unable to locate comparable domestic
manufacturers offering loupes with the specifications identified by
TxDOT.
    \2\ NHTSA conducted internet searches and reviewed several Web
sites that catalog domestic made products: www.usaonly.us;
www.americansworking.com; www.madeinamericaforever.com; and
www.madeinusa.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the above discussion, and pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
313(b)(3), NHTSA finds that it is appropriate to grant a waiver from
the Buy America requirements to TxDOT in order to purchase 500 light-up
magnifier loupes, with 15X power lens with ultra violet and LED lights
(Item SKU:220-Loupe 4) from Lightgod.com. This waiver applies to Texas
and all other States seeking to use section 405(d) funds to purchase
light-up magnifier loupes. This waiver will continue through fiscal
year 2015 and will allow the purchase of these items as required for
TxDOT. Accordingly, this waiver will expire at the conclusion of fiscal
year 2015 (September 30, 2015). In accordance with the provisions of
Section 117 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy of Users Technical Corrections Act
of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-244, 122 Stat. 1572), NHTSA is providing this
notice as its finding that a waiver of the Buy America requirements is
appropriate for 500 light-up magnifier loupes identified above from
Lightgod.com. Written comments on this finding may be submitted through
any of the methods discussed above. NHTSA may reconsider these
findings, if through comment, it learns of and can confirm the
existence of a comparable domestically made product to the items
granted a waiver.
    These findings should not be construed as an endorsement or
approval of any products by NHTSA or the U.S. Department of
Transportation. The United States Government does not endorse products
or manufacturers.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110-161.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 1.95.
O. Kevin Vincent,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-29404 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 61596]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24833]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL13-2-000]

Illinois Electric Agency; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on October 1, 2012, Illinois Electric Agency filed
its Revised and Superseding Proposed Revenue Requirement for reactive
supply service under Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc. Tariff Schedule 2.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 22, 2012.

    Dated: October 2, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24833 Filed 10-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72664-72667]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25380]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0210]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 22 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. 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.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 21, 2016. All
comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued
the day after the comment period closes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0210 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 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.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 22 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Gary A. Behrends

    Mr. Behrends, 58, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/
15. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion Gary has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Behrends reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 40 years, accumulating 400,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 400,000
miles. He holds an operator's license from Nebraska. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Harry R. Brewer

    Mr. Brewer, 53, has a macular scar in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1994. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2016, his
optometrist stated, ``In my professional medical opinion, Mr. Harry Rex
Brewer has sufficient vision to safely perform the driving tasks
necessary to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Brewer reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 26 years, accumulating 1.56 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Johnnie B. Bush

    Mr. Bush, 69, has had a prosthetic right eye since childhood. The
visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated,
``Vision is sufficient in the left eye to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Bush reported that he has driven straight trucks for 42
years, accumulating 84,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
42 years, accumulating 2.14 million miles. He holds an operator's
license from Mississippi. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Nathan J. Bute

    Mr. Bute, 35, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident
in 2003. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2016, his
optometrist stated, ``It is of my opinion that Nathan's visual
condition is stable, & suitable for operation of a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Bute reported that he has driven straight trucks for 7
years, accumulating 109,200 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Indiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gary L. Cox

    Mr. Cox, 51, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``He has
normal color vision and has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Cox reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 62,400 miles.
He holds an operator's license from Kentucky. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Kevin J. Embrey

    Mr. Embrey, 43, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In
my medial [sic] opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the
driving task required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Embrey
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 24 years, accumulating
360,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Peter J. Faber

    Mr. Faber, 54, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
100. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In
my medical opinion, Peter J. Faber, DOB 8/21/1962, has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Faber reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 5 years, accumulating 600,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Nebraska. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Ricky L. Gillum

    Mr. Gillum, 49, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye since
2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated,
``I believe Mr. Gillum has sufficient vision to drive a commercial
vehicle based on his left eye measurements.'' Mr. Gillum reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 2.25 million
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 19 years, accumulating 1.24
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL Ohio. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Johnny E. Hill

    Mr. Hill, 45, has enucleation in his right eye due to a traumatic
incident in 2013. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2016, his optometrist stated, ``Mr. Hill meets the vision waiver
requirements for a CDL and should be able to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Hill reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2
years, accumulating 168,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
8 years, accumulating 520,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from
Alabama. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Justin A. Hooper

    Mr. Hooper, 38, has glaucoma in his right eye due to a traumatic
incident in 2012. The visual acuity in his right eye is counting
fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016,
his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion he has adequate vision
to operate a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Hooper reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 765,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 13 years, accumulating 65,000
miles. He holds a

Class A CDL from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

John R. Horst

    Mr. Horst, 71, has had macular atrophy in his right eye due to
histoplasmosis since 1980. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
200, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2016, his
optometrist stated, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Horst has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Horst reported that he has driven straight trucks for 52
years, accumulating 1.09 million miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 47 years, accumulating 235,000 miles. He holds a Class
AM CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert E. Kelley, Jr.

    Mr. Kelley, 55, has amblyopia in his left eye due to a traumatic
incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and
in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2016, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``Based on the requirements of the DOT the
patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle'' Mr. Kelley reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 255,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 1 years, accumulating 10,000 miles. He holds
an operator's license from Washington. His driving record for the last
3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

David L. Manktelow

    Mr. Manktelow, 39, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
100. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``It is
my medical opinion that Mr. Manktelow has sufficient vision to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Manktelow reported that he has driven
tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 175,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

James F. McLaughlin

    Mr. McLaughlin, 54, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated,
``James has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. McLaughlin reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 700,000 miles. He
holds an operator's license from Minnesota. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Derrick P. Moore

    Mr. Moore, 37, has had cataract in his right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/
15. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated that Mr.
Moore does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a CMV. Mr. Moore reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 21 years, accumulating 420,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Richard L. Moores

    Mr. Moores, 41, has optic neuropathy and maculopathy in his left
eye due to a traumatic incident in 1998. The visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in
2016, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my medical opinion Richard
Moores has sufficient central and peripheral vision OD to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Moores reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 24 years, accumulating 120,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 5 years, accumulating 6,250 miles. He holds a Class A
CDL from Colorado. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Brian T. Morrison

    Mr. Morrison, 42, has optic atrophy in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1993. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
15, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2016, his
optometrist stated, ``Optic Atrophy . . . The patient has been driving
with a commercial driving license since 1996 without accident. [sic]
and this adds to my opinion that he can drive safely [sic] at the
present time and meets the licenses requirement.'' Mr. Morrison
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating
360,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 6 years,
accumulating 30,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Tad W. Sexsmith

    Mr. Sexsmith, 34, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left
eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated,
``In my professional opinion, I certify that Tad Sexsmith has
sufficient vision abilities to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Smith reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 320,000 miles. He holds a
Class B CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Dennis M. Varga, Jr.

    Mr. Varga, 37, has had a prosthetic right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left
eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated,
``Mr. Varga was born with a non-functional right eye and does not have
binocular vision. We would request that with his flawless record as a
CDL holder, you would grant the necessary medical waiver for him to
continue with both inter and intra-state driving privileges.'' Mr.
Varga reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years,
accumulating 360,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 18
years, accumulating 18,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael J. Weber

    Mr. Weber, 28, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
200. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, ``It
is my opinion that Mr. Weber has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Weber
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating
6,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating
6,000 miles, and buses for 4 years, accumulating 4,000 miles. He holds
an operator's license from New Jersey. His driving record for the last
3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Mark B. Wilmer

    Mr. Wilmer, 54, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``With
these test results and Mark's past driving record, I feel he is
qualified to safely operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Wilmer reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 900 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 30,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Hezekiah Woodrup Sr.

    Mr. Woodrup, 62, has a retinal scar in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/400, and in his left eye, 20/30. Following an examination in 2016,
his optometrist stated, ``It is in my opinion, that the patient meets
vision requirements for use of commercial vehicle and is able to
perform the driving tasks required to operate the vehicle.'' Mr.
Woodrup reported that he has driven straight trucks for 7 years,
accumulating 210,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Maryland. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

III. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, 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 the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number FMCSA-2016-0210 in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search. When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!'' button
and type your comment into the text box in 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. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number FMCSA-2016-0210 in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed 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., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: October 14, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-25380 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 22176-22178]
[DOCID:fr27ap10-109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID. FMCSA-2009-0011]

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 19 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision standard. The Agency has concluded that granting
these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective April 27, 2010. The exemptions
expire on April 27, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the

comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is also available at
http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    On March 2, 2010, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (75 FR 9480). That notice listed 19 applicants' case histories.
The 19 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 19 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of at 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 standard
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision standard,
but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation
and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 19 exemption
applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable
to meet the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including
amblyopia, aphakia, corneal scarring, prosthesis, retinal detachment
and retinal scarring. In most cases, their eye conditions were not
recently developed. All but 7 of the applicants were either born with
their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The 7
individuals who sustained their vision conditions as adults have had
them for periods ranging from 5 to 30 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
standard 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 these applicants satisfied the testing standards for their
State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle,
with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State. While
possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 19 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 4 to 37
years. In the past 3 years, one of the drivers had a conviction for a
traffic violation and two of the drivers were involved in crashes.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the March 2, 2010
notice (75 FR 9480).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard 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 not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision,
but also their driving records and experience with the vision
deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision standard, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at docket number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.

    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 19 applicants, only one of the applicants had a traffic violation;
failure to stay in the proper lane. All the applicants achieved a
record of safety while driving with their vision impairments,
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 standard 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 19 applicants listed in the notice of March
2, 2010 (75 FR 9480).
    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 19 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 standard 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 also have a copy of
the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was
considered and discussed below.
    The one comment received was in favor of granting the Federal
vision exemption to Larry D. Buchanan.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 19 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts, Dwight A. Bennett, Arthur W. Boatright, Jr., Larry D.
Buchanan, Chad L. Burnham, Chadwick S. Chambers, Loren D. Chapman,
David A. Christenson, Charles R. Everett, Julian R. Hall, Claude R.
Havener, Paul K. Leger, Robert L. Postell, Martin L. Reyes, Gerald L.
Rush, Jr., Wayne J. Savage, Gary F. Segur, Alan T. Watterson, David E.
Williford and Larry W. Winkler from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on April 19, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-9671 Filed 4-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 40584-40585]
[DOCID:fr15jy08-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2005-D-0157] (formerly Docket No. 2005D-0286)

Guidance for Industry: Current Good Manufacturing Practice for
Phase 1 Investigational Drugs; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a document entitled ``Guidance for Industry: CGMP for
Phase 1 Investigational Drugs'' dated July 2008. The guidance provides
assistance in applying relevant current good manufacturing practice
(CGMP) requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
act) to the manufacture of most investigational new drugs, including
biological drugs, used in phase 1 clinical trials. FDA is issuing this
guidance concurrently with a final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register specifying that compliance with FDA's
CGMP regulations is not required for most investigational drugs that
are manufactured for use in phase 1 clinical trials. Therefore, FDA is
recommending the approaches outlined in this guidance for complying
with the statutory CGMP requirements in the act. The guidance announced
in this notice finalizes the draft guidance entitled ``INDs--Approaches
to Complying with CGMP During Phase 1'' dated January 2006.

DATES:  Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at
any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857, or the Office of Communication, Training, and
Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike,
suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive
label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance
may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-
827-1800. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

    Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monica Caphart, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD-320), Food and Drug Administration, 11919
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Christopher
Joneckis, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-1), Food
and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD
20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled
``Guidance for Industry: CGMP for Phase 1 Investigational Drugs'' dated
July 2008. This guidance provides assistance in applying CGMP required
under section 501(a)(2)(B) of the act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) in the
manufacture of most investigational new drugs used in phase 1 clinical
trials (phase 1 investigational drugs). The guidance is being issued
concurrently with a final rule that specifies that the manufacture of
most investigational new drugs manufactured for use in phase 1 clinical
trials do not have to comply with the specific regulatory requirements
in part 211 (21 CFR part 211).
    Because a phase 1 clinical trial initially introduces an
investigational new drug into human subjects, appropriate CGMP helps
ensure subject safety. This guidance applies, as part of CGMP, quality
control principles to the manufacture of phase 1 investigational drugs
(i.e., interpreting and implementing CGMP consistent with good
scientific methodology), which foster CGMP activities that are more
appropriate for phase 1 clinical trials, improve the quality of phase 1
investigational drugs, and facilitate the initiation of investigational
clinical trials in humans while continuing to protect trial subjects.
For the manufacture of phase 1 investigational drugs described in this
guidance (see section III of the guidance), this guidance will replace
the guidance issued in 1991 (56 FR 7048, February 21, 1991) entitled
``Preparation of Investigational New Drug Products (Human and Animal)''
(the 1991 guidance). However, the 1991 guidance still applies to the
manufacture of investigational new products (human and animal) used in
phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials.
    In the Federal Register of January 17, 2006 (71 FR 2552), FDA
announced the availability of the draft guidance entitled ``INDs--
Approaches to Complying with CGMP During Phase 1'' dated January 2006.
FDA received a moderate number of comments on the draft guidance and
those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. The
guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated
January 2006.
    The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's
current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights
for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in this guidance for part 211 have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0139.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding the guidance.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. A copy of the guidance and received
comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm, http://www.fda.gov/cber/
guidelines.htm, or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 9, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Comissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-16002 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 30203]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09911]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34907; File No. 812-15365]

Lafayette Square USA, Inc. et al.

May 4, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 18(a) and
61(a) of the Act.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit the
Company to adhere to a modified asset coverage requirement with respect
to any direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company that
is licensed by the Small Business Administration to operate under the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958 as a small business investment
company (``SBIC'') and relies on Section 3(c)(7) for an exclusion from
the definition of ``investment company'' under the Act.

Applicants:  Lafayette Square USA, Inc. (the ``Company''), LS BDC
Adviser, LLC (the ``Adviser''), Lafayette Square SBIC, LP (the
``Lafayette Square SBIC''), and Lafayette Square SBIC GP, LLC (the
``SBIC GP'').

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on July 11, 2022 and amended
on February 3, 2023.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the Commission's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on May 29,
2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the Applicants,
in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants: David
Kraut, [email protected], Thomas Friedmann,
[email protected], and Jonathan Gaines,
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toyin Momoh, Senior Counsel, or Lisa
Reid Ragen, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of Investment
Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended and
restated application, dated February 3, 2023, which may be obtained via
the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of
this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field,
on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You
may also call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09911 Filed 5-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32301-32303]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14744]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0132, FRL-9962-42-Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of Plans for Designated Facilities; New
Jersey; Delegation of Authority

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a request from the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) for delegation of authority to implement and enforce
the Federal plan for Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) units. On April
29, 2016 the EPA promulgated the Federal plan for SSI units to fulfill
the requirements of sections 111(d)/129 of the Clean Air Act. The
Federal plan addresses the implementation and enforcement of the
emission guidelines applicable to existing SSI units located in areas
not covered by an approved and currently effective state plan. The
Federal plan imposes emission limits and other control requirements for
existing affected SSI facilities which will reduce designated
pollutants.
    On January 24, 2017, the NJDEP signed a Memorandum of Agreement
which is intended to be the mechanism for the transfer of authority
between the EPA and the NJDEP and defines the policies,
responsibilities and procedures pursuant to the Federal plan for
existing SSI units.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2017-0132 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony (Ted) Gardella, Environmental
Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at
(212)

637-3892, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is
arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Why is the EPA proposing this action?
III. What was submitted by the NJDEP and how did the EPA respond?
IV. What are the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements?
V. What guidance did the EPA use to evaluate the NJDEP's delegation
request?
VI. What is the EPA's conclusion?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to approve the NJDEP's request for delegation
of authority to implement and enforce a Federal plan and to adhere to
the terms and conditions prescribed in the Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) signed between the EPA and the NJDEP, as further explained below.
The NJDEP requested delegation of authority of the Federal plan for
existing applicable Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) units constructed
on or before October 14, 2010. See 40 CFR part 62, subpart LLL. The
Federal plan was promulgated by the EPA to implement emission
guidelines (see 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM) pursuant to sections
111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The purpose of this
delegation is to acknowledge the NJDEP's ability to implement a program
and to transfer primary implementation and enforcement responsibility
from the EPA to the NJDEP for existing applicable sources of SSI units.
While the NJDEP is delegated the authority to implement and enforce the
SSI Federal plan, nothing in the delegation agreement shall prohibit
the EPA from enforcing the SSI Federal plan.

II. Why is the EPA proposing this action?

    The EPA is proposing this action to:
     Give the public the opportunity to submit comments on the
EPA's proposed action, as discussed in the ADDRESSES section of this
Notice;
     Fulfill a goal of the CAA to place state governments in
positions of leadership for air pollution prevention and control; and
     Allow the NJDEP to implement and enforce a Federal plan
promulgated by the EPA that implements emission guidelines pursuant to
sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA.

III. What was submitted by the NJDEP and how did the EPA respond?

    On October 12, 2016, the NJDEP submitted to the EPA a request for
delegation of authority from the EPA to implement and enforce the
Federal plan for existing SSI units. The EPA prepared the MOA that
defines the policies, responsibilities, and procedures by which the
Federal plan will be administered by both the NJDEP and the EPA,
pursuant to 40 CFR part 62, subpart LLL for SSI units. The MOA is the
mechanism for the transfer of responsibility from the EPA to the NJDEP.
    Both the EPA and the NJDEP signed the MOA in which the State agrees
to the terms and conditions of the MOA and accepts responsibility to
implement and enforce the policies, responsibilities and procedures of
the SSI Federal plan. The transfer of authority to the NJDEP became
effective upon signature by the NJDEP on January 24, 2017.

IV. What are the CAA requirements?

    Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require states to submit plans
to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid
waste combustor facilities and municipal solid waste landfills
(designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been
established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type and
the EPA has established emission guidelines (EG) for such existing
sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant for which no air
quality criteria has been issued or which is not included on a list
published under section 108(a) (national ambient air quality standards)
or section 112 (hazardous air pollutants) of the CAA, but emissions of
which would be subject to a standard of performance for new stationary
sources under section 111(b). In addition, section 129 of the CAA also
requires the EPA to promulgate EG for solid waste incineration units
that emit specific air pollutants or a mixture of air pollutants. These
pollutants include organics (dioxins and dibenzofurans), carbon
monoxide, metals (cadmium, lead and mercury), acid gases (hydrogen
chloride, sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen), particulate matter
and opacity (as appropriate).
    On March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15372), the EPA promulgated NSPS and EG
for SSI units, 40 CFR part 60, subparts LLLL and MMMM, respectively.
The designated facility to which the EG applies is existing SSI units,
as stipulated in subpart MMMM, that commenced construction on or before
October 14, 2010. See 40 CFR 60.5060 for details.
    Pursuant to section 129 of the CAA, state plan requirements must be
``at least as protective'' as the EG and become federally enforceable
upon approval by the EPA. The procedures for adoption and submittal of
state plans are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. For states that
fail to submit a plan, the EPA is required to develop and implement a
Federal plan within two years following promulgation of the EG. The EPA
implementation and enforcement of the Federal plan is viewed as an
interim measure until states assume their role as the preferred
implementers of the EG requirements stipulated in the Federal plan.
Accordingly, the EPA encourages states to develop their own plan, or
request delegation of the Federal plan, as the NJDEP has done.

V. What guidance did the EPA use to evaluate the NJDEP's delegation
request?

    The EPA evaluated the NJDEP's request for delegation of the SSI
Federal plan pursuant to the provisions of the SSI Federal plan and the
EPA's Delegation Manual.\1\ Section 62.15865 of the SSI Federal plan
establishes that a state may meet its CAA section 111(d)/129
obligations by submitting an acceptable written request for delegation
of the Federal plan that includes the following requirements: (1) A
demonstration of adequate resources and legal authority to administer
and enforce the Federal plan; (2) an inventory of affected SSI units,
an inventory of emissions from affected SSI units, and provisions for
state progress reports (see items under Sec.  60.5015(a)(1), (2) and
(7) from the SSI EG); (3) certification that the hearing on the state
delegation request, similar to the hearing for a state plan submittal,
was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if
any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each
presentation or written submission; and (4) a commitment to enter into
a MOA with the Regional Administrator that sets forth the terms,
conditions and effective date of the delegation and that serves as the
mechanism for the transfer of authority. Under the EPA's Delegation
Manual, item 7-139, the Regional Administrator is authorized to
delegate implementation and enforcement of

sections 111(d)/129 Federal plans to state environmental agencies. The
requirements and limitations of a delegation agreement are defined in
item 7-139. The Regional Administrator may consider delegating
authority to implement and enforce Federal plans to a state provided
the following conditions are met: (1) The state does not already have
an EPA approved State plan; and (2) items (1) and (4) as described
above from section 62.15865 of the SSI Federal plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 7-139 of the EPA's Delegation Manual is entitled
``Implementation and Enforcement of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/129(b)(3)
Federal Plans'' and the reader may refer to it in the docket for
this proposed rule at www.regulations.gov (see Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2017-0132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NJDEP has met all of the EPA's delegation requirements as described
above. The reader may view the NJDEP's letter to the EPA requesting
delegation and the MOA signed by both parties at www.regulations.gov,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0132.

VI. What is the EPA's conclusion?

    The EPA has evaluated the NJDEP's submittal for consistency with
the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. The NJDEP has met all the
requirements of the EPA's guidance for obtaining delegation of
authority to implement and enforce the SSI Federal plan. The NJDEP
entered into a MOA with the EPA and it became effective on January 24,
2017. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to approve the NJDEP's request
dated October 12, 2016 for delegation of authority of the Federal plan
for existing SSI units. The EPA will continue to retain certain
specific authorities reserved to the EPA in the SSI Federal plan and as
indicated in the MOA (e.g., authority to approve major alternatives to
test methods or monitoring, etc.).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a State
plan submission that complies with the provisions of CAA sections
111(d) and 129(b)(2) and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C.
7411(d) and 7429(b)(2); 40 CFR 62.02(a). Thus, in reviewing State plan
submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to the NJDEP's
section 111(d)/(129) request for delegation of authority to implement
and enforce the Federal plan for existing SSI units, does not have
tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the NJDEP's section 111(d)/129 delegation
request is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, waste treatment and disposal.

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

    Dated: April 28, 2017.
Walter Mugdan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2017-14744 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P