[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34420-34421]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13522]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69683; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-57]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Correction of Typographical Errors in Respect of the Treasury
Securities Options

June 3, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 20, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, 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 is filing with the Commission a proposal to correct a
typographical error in the title of the Rule 1000D Series of Rules
(Rules Applicable to the Trading of Options on Treasury Securities) and
a typographical error in Rule 1004D (Reports Related to Position Limits
and Liquidation of Positions--Treasury Securities Options).
    The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay period contained in Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to correct a typographical error in
the title of the Rule 1000D Series and in Rule 1004D, and thereby
clarify and conform Exchange rules pertaining to listing options on
Treasury securities (``Treasury securities options'').
    As of October 2012, Treasury security options are listed, pursuant
to the Rule 1000D Series, on Treasury bonds or notes.\3\ These are
Treasury securities that are a direct obligation of, or an obligation
guaranteed as to principal or interest by, the United States or a
corporation in which the United States has a direct or indirect
interest (except debt securities guaranteed as to timely payment of
principal and interest by the Government National Mortgage
Association.\4\ Currently, Exchange approval of Treasury securities
underlying options extends to the settled on-the-run Treasury
securities.\5\ This filing does not make any changes to the listing and
trading rules for Treasury securities options per the Rule 1000D
Series, other than the correction of two non-substantive typographical
errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67976 (October 4,
2012), 77 FR 61794 (October 11, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-105) (order
approving listing and trading Treasury securities options on Phlx)
(the ``Treasury securities options filing''). Notes have a term to
maturity of at least two years but no more than ten years at the
time of original issuance, and bonds are interest-bearing debt
instruments issued by the U.S. Treasury that have a term to maturity
of more than ten years at the time of original issuance. Subsections
(a)(2) and (a)(3), respectively, of Rule 1001D.
    \4\ Rule 1001D(a)(1). Subsection (a)(1) indicates that
securities issued or guaranteed by individual departments or
agencies of the United States are sometimes referred to by the title
of the department or agency involved (e.g. a ``Treasury security''
is a debt instrument that is issued by the U.S. Treasury).
    \5\ On-the-run (as opposed to off-the-run) Treasury securities
are the most recently issued U.S. Treasury bonds or notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, in the name of the Rule 1000D Series, Rules Applicable to
Trading of Options on Treasury Securities (Rules 1000D-1026D) (``the
initial rule name''), the Exchange is changing the final rule number
from 1026D to 1025D. This is done to clarify and conform the number in
the initial rule name to the actual last rule number in the Rule 1000D
Series, which is Rule 1025D, as well as with the rule filing initially
adopting these requirements, which reflects Rule 1025D as the last rule
in the Rule 1000D Series.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67683 (August
17, 2012), 77 FR 51088 at 51088 (``. . . to implement Exchange Rules
1000D through 1025D . . .'') and at 51095 (``Proposed rule 1025D
sets up guidelines . . .'') (August 23, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-105)
(notice of Treasury securities options filing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, in Rule 1004D, the Exchange is changing the number from $20
million principal amount to $2 million principal amount. This is done
to clarify and conform the principal amount in Rule 1004D with the rule
filing initially adopting these requirements, which reflects $2 million
principal amount.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67683 (August
17, 2012), 77 FR 51088 at 51095 (``. . . positions of options
covering $2 million . . .'') (August 23, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-105)
(notice of Treasury securities options filing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intent was, and is, to reflect the last rule number and the
principal amount as proposed herein.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by correcting two non-substantive typographical errors in the Rule
1000D Series, thereby clarifying the Treasury securities options rules
and eliminating the potential for confusion. The Exchange believes that
the adoption of clear language with respect to the meaning,
administration, and enforcement of the Rule 1000D Series will promote
members' understanding of the parameters of the rules in respect of
Treasury Securities options and the efficiency of their administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that while rule clarity
is generally pro-competitive, the act of clarifying and conforming two
non-substantive typographical errors should have little, if any, impact
on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may
take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder \11\
because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because this rule change is not proposing any substantive changes and
is merely correcting inaccuracies in the Exchange's rules. This should
eliminate member confusion and provide clarity on how the rules apply.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-Phlx-2013-57 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-Phlx-2013-57. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
St. NE., Washington, DC 20549, 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 office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2013-57, and should be submitted on or before June 28, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13522 Filed 6-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90046-90048]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0207]

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

DATES: The exemptions were granted November 11, 2016. The exemptions
expire on November 11, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On October 11, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (81 FR 70248). That notice listed 18 applicants' case
histories. The 18 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 18 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive

safely. The 18 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this
category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons, including amblyopia, complete loss of vision,
exotropia, hypoexotropia, macular scar, optic atrophy, retinal
detachment, and retinal scar. In most cases, their eye conditions were
not recently developed. Sixteen of the applicants were either born with
their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The 2 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of 22 to 32 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 18 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 3 to 45
years. In the past three years, 1 driver was involved in a crash, and 1
driver was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 11, 2016
notice (81 FR 70248).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 18 applicants, 1 driver was involved in a crash and 1 driver was
convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a
record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 18 applicants listed in the notice of October
11, 2016 (81 FR 70248).
    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 18
individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to
drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received 1 comment in this proceeding. Joshua H. stated that
Tracy L. Neal holds a license in Mississippi and not Michigan.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 18 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 49 CFR
391.64(b):

Joshua A. Akshar (NY)
Elijah A. Allen, Jr. (AR)
Tanner H. Brooks (MS)
Brian E. Broux (CA)
Alvin J. Dannenmann (DE)
Wayne L. Dorbert (PA)
Roger D. Ellsworth Jr. (NC)
Gregory L. Frisch (CA)
Josh Gallant Jr. (SC)
John P. Grum (PA)
Dillon L. Hendren (SC)
Roger E. Kadolph (IA)
Jay D. May (CO)
Tracy L. Neal (MS)
Edward P. Paloskey Jr. (PA)
Jesse R. Parker (LA)
Christopher A. Stewart (GA)
Emejildo Vargas (MA)

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

    Issued on: December 2, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-29824 Filed 12-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9459-9460]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0086]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Little Snake
Hill, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Amtrak Portal Bridge across the
Hackensack River, mile 5.0, at Little Snake Hill, New Jersey. This
deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation schedule to
determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is needed. The
Coast Guard is seeking comments from the public about the impact to
both train and vessel traffic generated by this change.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from March 15,
2019 through 11:59 p.m. on September 9, 2019. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on March 14,
2019, until March 15, 2019.
    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard
on or before July 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0086 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register

I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    In a letter to the Coast Guard, dated December 4, 2018, The
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) requested to change
operating requirements for the Amtrak's Portal Bridge across the
Hackensack River, mile 5.0, at Little Snake Hill, New

Jersey. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33
CFR 117.723(e). In their request, Amtrak provided the Coast Guard with
bridge opening logs from 2011 to 2018, which showed that the number of
bridge openings declined significantly since 2016 rush hour train
traffic increased during the same period, arguing that the decreased
demand for bridge openings and increased train traffic enabled
modifications to the bridge's special operating regulation. The Coast
Guard collected stakeholder feedback regarding a proposed change to the
bridge's schedule via a December 13, 2018 public notice and a
conference call on February 7, 2019. This 180 day temporary deviation
to the regulation will allow the Coast Guard, waterway stakeholders,
and the bridge owner to collect vessel traffic and other data to assess
the impact of changing the bridge's operating schedule.
    The Amtrak Portal Bridge is a swing bridge with a vertical
clearance of 23 feet at mean high water and 28 feet at mean low water
in the closed position. The waterway users are seasonal recreational
vessels and commercial vessels of various sizes. The 2017 and 2018
bridge logs indicated the number of bridge openings during rush hour
have become minimal (one or two vessels per month), however, most of
the waterway vessel traffic requires high tide when transiting under
the bridge and needs an opportunity during rush hour for possible
openings.
    The Coast Guard is publishing this temporary deviation to test the
proposed change to the bridge's operating schedule and determine
whether a permanent change to the schedule is necessary to better
balance the needs of marine and rail traffic.
    Under this deviation, in effect from 12:01 a.m. on March 14, 2019,
to 11:59 p.m. on September 9, 2019, the Amtrak Portal Bridge need not
open for the passage of vessel traffic from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from
3 p.m. to 8 p.m. Additional bridge openings shall be provided for tide
restricted commercial vessels between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. and between 5
p.m. and 6 p.m., if at least a two-hour advance notice is given by
calling the number posted at the bridge. At all other times the bridge
shall open on signal if at least two-hour advance notice is given.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time. There are no alternate routes. The bridge will be
able to open for emergencies.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.
    Documents mentioned in this notification as being available in this
docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

    Dated: March 12, 2019.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019-04889 Filed 3-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18989-18991]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09110]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0569; FRL-9993-25-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Nonattainment New Source Review
Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, as a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, Wisconsin's certification
that its SIP satisfies the nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The State's submittal is in
response to EPA's February 3 and December 11, 2017, Findings of Failure
to Submit (FFS) final rule, which found that Wisconsin failed to
satisfy CAA requirements for implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
nonattainment areas.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0569. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Rachel Rineheart, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
886-7017 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Rineheart, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Background on the 2008 Ozone Standard

    On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.075 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Promulgation of a revised NAAQS
triggers a requirement for EPA to designate areas of the country as
nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for the standard. For the
ozone NAAQS, this also involves classifying any nonattainment areas at
the time of designation.\2\ Ozone nonattainment areas are classified
based on the severity of their ozone levels (as determined based on the
area's ``design value,'' which represents air quality in the area for
the most recent 3 years). The classifications for ozone nonattainment
areas are marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 16436.
    \2\ CAA sections 107(d)(1) and 181(a)(1).
    \3\ CAA section 181(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Areas that EPA designates nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are
subject to the general nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA
section 172 and also to the ozone-specific planning requirements of CAA
section 182. Ozone nonattainment areas in the lower classification
levels have fewer and/or less stringent mandatory air quality planning
and control requirements than those in higher classifications. For
marginal areas, a state is required to submit a baseline emissions
inventory, adopt provisions into the SIP requiring emissions statements
from stationary sources, and implement a NNSR program for the relevant
ozone NAAQS.\4\ For moderate areas, a state needs to comply with the
marginal area requirements, plus additional moderate area requirements,
including the requirement to submit a modeled demonstration that the
area will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than 6 years after designation, the requirement to submit a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, the requirement to adopt and implement
certain emissions controls, such as Reasonably Available Control
Technology and Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance, and the
requirement for greater emissions offsets for new or modified major
stationary sources under the state's NNSR program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA section 182(a).
    \5\ CAA section 182(b).

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

B. Background on the Wisconsin Ozone Nonattainment Areas

    On June 11, 2012,\6\ EPA designated the Chicago area as a marginal
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Chicago area includes
Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties and part of Grundy
and Kendall Counties in Illinois; Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana;
and part of Kenosha County in Wisconsin. On May 4, 2016,\7\ pursuant to
section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA determined that the Chicago area
failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20, 2015 marginal
area attainment deadline and thus reclassified the area from marginal
to moderate nonattainment. In that action, EPA established January 1,
2017, as the due date for all moderate area nonattainment plan SIP
requirements applicable to newly reclassified areas. Pleasant Prairie
and Somers townships in Kenosha County are part of the Chicago area
nonattainment area. The remainder of Kenosha County is designated as
unclassifiable/attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 77 FR 34221, effective July 20, 2012.
    \7\ 81 FR 26697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 21, 2012,\8\ EPA designated Sheboygan County in Wisconsin as
a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On December 19,
2016,\9\ pursuant to section 181(b) of the CAA, EPA determined that
Sheboygan County failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20,
2016 marginal area attainment deadline and thus reclassified the area
from marginal to moderate nonattainment. In that action, EPA
established January 1, 2017, as the due date for all moderate area
nonattainment plan SIP requirements applicable to newly reclassified
areas. Effective March 6, 2017, EPA found that 15 states and the
District of Columbia failed to submit SIP revisions in a timely manner
to satisfy certain requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\10\ This
finding established certain deadlines for the imposition of sanctions
if a state does not submit a timely SIP revision addressing the
requirements for which the finding was made and for EPA to promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address any outstanding SIP
requirements. As part of that action, EPA made a finding that Wisconsin
failed to submit a marginal NNSR SIP for the Wisconsin portion of the
Chicago area and for Sheboygan County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21,2012).
    \9\ 81 FR 91841 (December 19, 2016).
    \10\ 82 FR 9158 (February 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Wisconsin's Submittal

    On July 19, 2018, Wisconsin submitted a SIP revision requesting EPA
approve Wisconsin's certification that its existing SIP-approved NNSR
regulations fully satisfy the NNSR requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.165 for both marginal and moderate ozone nonattainment areas for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA proposed to approve Wisconsin's certification on
February 12, 2019, with a comment period ending on March 14, 2019 (84
FR 3376). No comments were received during the comment period.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Wisconsin's July 18, 2018, SIP revision addressing
the NNSR requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago Nonattainment Area and for Sheboygan County. EPA
has concluded that Wisconsin's submission fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114
revision requirement, meets the requirements of CAA sections 110 and
172 and the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165. Approval of the
NNSR requirements addresses EPA's finding that Wisconsin failed to
submit moderate ozone NNSR requirements and EPA's approval turns off
the sanctions and FIP clock.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 2, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the

time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This
action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 24, 2019.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. Section 52.2585 is amended by adding paragraph (hh) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2585  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (hh) Approval--On July 19, 2018, Wisconsin submitted a SIP revision
certifying that the existing SIP-approved nonattainment new source
review regulations fully satisfy the nonattainment new source review
requirements for marginal and moderate ozone nonattainment areas for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2019-09110 Filed 5-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68745-68746]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD12-2-000]

Notice of Intent To Update the Upland Erosion Control and
Revegetation and Maintenance Plan and the Wetland and Waterbody
Construction and Mitigation Procedures and Request for Comments

    The staff of the Office of Energy Projects is in the process of
reviewing its Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan
(Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures
(Procedures), dated January 17, 2003, to determine if there are
appropriate updates or improvements to be made at this time. In
accordance with Order 603,\1\ the staff is asking for public input and
suggestions for modifications to the Plan and Procedures from the
natural gas industry, federal, state and local agencies, environmental
consultants, inspectors, construction contractors, and other interested
parties with special expertise with respect to environmental

issues commonly associated with pipeline projects. Please note that
this comment period will close on January 18, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revision Of Existing Regulations Under Part 157 and Related
Sections of the Commission's Regulations Under the Natural Gas Act,
Commission Order No. 603, Docket No. RM98-9-000, issued April 29,
1999. Noticed in the Federal Register on May 14, 1999. 64 FR 26572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan and Procedures are referred to at 18 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 380.12(i)(5) and 380.12(d)(2), respectively, as well
as 18 CFR 157.206(b)(3)(iv). Full texts of the current versions of the
Plan and Procedures can be viewed on the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC or Commission) Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines.asp.
    We anticipate issuing our draft changes to the Plan and Procedures
in early 2012 and will make them available for public comment. We will
then consider all timely comments on the drafts before issuing the
final versions.
    Interested parties can help us determine the appropriate updates
and improvements to make by providing us comments or suggestions that
focus on the specific sections requiring clarification, updates to
reflect current laws and regulations, or improved measures to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the
more useful they will be. A detailed explanation of your submissions
and/or any references of scientific studies associated with your
comments would greatly help us with this process.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
docket number (AD12-2-000) with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff
available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include your name and email address so we can include you in future
notices regarding our planned revisions.
    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an easy method
for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making. A comment in response to this notice is considered a
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    All of the information related to the proposed updates to the Plan
and Procedures and submitted comments can be found on the FERC Web site
(www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link,
click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number, excluding the
last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., AD12-2). Be sure
you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary
link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28693 Filed 11-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P