[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52654-52656]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18679]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89622; File No. SR-BOX-2020-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee
Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC Facility To Amend the Liquidity
Fees and Credits for SPY PIP and COPIP Transactions

August 20, 2020.
    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 August 12, 2020, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on
the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') facility. The text of the proposed
rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at
the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's
internet website at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to amend Section III., Liquidity Fees and Credits. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend the liquidity fees and credits for SPY PIP
and COPIP transactions. Currently, a Public Customer SPY PIP or COPIP
Order receives a $0.45 ``removal'' credit while the corresponding
Primary Improvement Order and any Improvement Order are charged a $0.45
``add'' fee. Further, under the current BOX Fee Schedule, when Non-
Public Customer SPY PIP or COPIP orders do not trade with its Primary
Improvement Order, the Primary Improvement Order receives a $0.45
``removal'' credit and any corresponding Improvement Order responses
are charged a $0.45 ``add'' fee.
    The Exchange now proposes to no longer assess liquidity fees and
credits for SPY PIP and COPIP transactions as described above, and
instead proposes to establish that SPY PIP and COPIP Order submitted to
the PIP and COPIP mechanisms that do not trade with their Primary
Improvement Order shall receive a ``removal'' credit of $0.45, while
Improvement Orders to the SPY PIP and COPIP Orders executed in these
mechanisms shall be charged the ``add'' fee of $0.45. The Exchange
notes that a similar fee and credit structure is in place for liquidity
fees and credits for Facilitation and Solicitation transactions on
BOX.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See BOX Fee Schedule Section III.B. Agency Orders submitted
to the Facilitation and Solicitation mechanisms that do not trade
with their contra order shall receive the ``removal'' credit.
Responses to Facilitation and Solicitation Orders executed in these
mechanisms shall be charged the ``add'' fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change to establish new SPY PIP
and COPIP liquidity fees and credits is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory because pricing by symbol is a common practice
on many U.S. options exchanges as a means to incentivize order flow to
be sent to an exchange for execution in the most actively traded
options classes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange is proposing that SPY PIP and COPIP Order
submitted to the PIP and COPIP mechanisms that do not trade with
their Primary Improvement Order shall receive a ``removal'' credit
of $0.45, while responses to the SPY PIP and COPIP Orders executed
in these mechanisms shall be charged the ``add'' fee of $0.45.
Further, the Exchange notes that SPY Primary Improvement Orders will
no longer be assessed the $0.45 ``add'' fee. The Exchange believes
that the proposed changes will result in increased SPY order flow to
BOX's PIP and COPIP auction mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Section III of
the BOX Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed
change

is reasonable as a similar ``removal'' credit and ``add'' fee structure
is in place for liquidity fees and credits for Facilitation and
Solicitation transactions.\8\ The Exchange believes that mirroring the
structure in place for liquidity fees and credits for Facilitation and
Solicitation transactions is reasonable as the Exchange believes that
the proposed change will incentivize Participants to submit SPY order
flow through the PIP and COPIP auction mechanisms thereby benefitting
all market participants through promoting market depth, facilitating
tighter spreads and enhancing price discovery. Further, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as the change applies to all Participants, regardless of
account type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this proposal, Public Customer SPY PIP and COPIP Primary
Improvement Orders will no longer be assessed the $0.45 ``add'' fee;
however, responses to the SPY PIP and COPIP Orders will continue to be
charged the $0.45 ``add'' fee. The Exchange believes it is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge higher exchange
fees for responders in the PIP and COPIP mechanisms than for initiators
of these orders and the contra orders. The Exchange believes it is
reasonable when compared to a similar practice for Facilitation and
Solicitation fees at a competing venue.\9\ For example, at Nasdaq ISE
the fee for both the initiating and contra order for PIM Orders is
$0.10 for Select Symbols for all account types except Priority
Customers who are charged no fees. Responses to these orders are
charged $0.50 for Select Symbols regardless of account type. The
Exchange notes that a differential of fees between initiators and
responders currently exists in the Facilitation and Solicitation
auction mechanisms on BOX. Further, the Exchange continues to believe
that the proposed differential is reasonable because responders to PIP
and COPIP Orders are willing to pay a higher fee for liquidity
discovery. Responders to PIP and COPIP Orders are given the opportunity
to interact with customer order flow which, in turn, allows for the
opportunity for increased executions on the Exchange thus benefitting
all market participants. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable
and appropriate to charge initiators of PIP and COPIP Orders less than
responders because initiators bring liquidity to the Exchange which, in
turn, results in increased opportunity for more executions on BOX. As
such, the Exchange believes the differential is reasonable and
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Nasdaq ISE LLC (``Nasdaq ISE'') Pricing Schedule Section
3. (Regular Order Fees and Rebates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, if a non-Public Customer PIP or COPIP Order does not
trade with its Primary Improvement Order, the Primary Improvement Order
receives the $0.45 ``removal'' credit and any corresponding Improvement
Order responses are charged the $0.45 ``add'' fee. Now, under this
proposal, all SPY PIP and COPIP Orders submitted to the PIP and COPIP
mechanisms that do not trade with their Primary Improvement Order shall
receive a ``removal'' credit of $0.45. Improvements Orders submitted to
the SPY PIP and COPIP Orders executed in these mechanisms will continue
to be charged the ``add'' fee of $0.45. The Exchange believes this is
reasonable and competitive when compared to similar fees and credits
for SPY transactions at a competing venue.\10\ Further, as discussed
herein, the Exchange believes the proposed change will incentivize
Participants to submit SPY order flow through the PIP and COPIP auction
mechanisms thus increasing liquidity on the Exchange and increasing the
opportunity for executions thus benefitting all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Phlx Pricing Schedule, Section 3, Part A. The Exchange
notes that Phlx offers rebates ranging from $0.12 to $0.32 to Lead
Market Makers and Market Makers for adding liquidity in SPY.
Further, Phlx assesses a $0.48 fee for Market Makers, Broker Dealers
and Professionals and a $0.42 fee for Public Customers for removing
liquidity in SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Section III are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that the fees and credits
apply to all categories of Participants and across all account types.
The Exchange notes that liquidity fees and credits on BOX are meant to
offset one another in any particular transaction. The liquidity fees
and credits do not directly result in revenue to BOX, but simply allows
BOX to provide incentives to Participants to attract order flow. The
Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
charge lower exchange fees for initiators in the PIP and COPIP
mechanisms than for responders because initiators bring liquidity to
the Exchange which, in turn, allows responders to interact with
customer orders thus increasing the opportunity for more executions on
BOX. The Exchange believes that structuring the proposed fees and
credits will incentivize initiators to bring order flow to the Exchange
thus benefitting all market participants. Further, the Exchange
believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge
higher exchange fees for responders in the PIP and COPIP mechanisms
than for initiators because, as discussed herein, responders to PIP and
COPIP Orders are willing to pay a higher fee for liquidity discovery
and, in turn, are given the opportunity to interact with customer order
flow on BOX.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing exchanges. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects
this competitive environment.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed liquidity fees and credits will burden competition by
creating such a disparity between the fees an initiating Participant in
the PIP and COPIP auction pays and the fees a competitive responder
pays that would result in certain Participants being unable to compete
with initiators. In fact, the Exchange believes that these changes will
not impair these Participants from adding liquidity and competing in
PIP and COPIP auction transactions and will help promote competition by
providing incentives for market participants to submit customer order
flow to BOX and thus, create a greater opportunity for customers to
receive additional price improvement.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed liquidity fees and
credits for SPY PIP and COPIP transactions will not impose a burden on
competition. Rather, BOX believes that the changes will result in
Participants being charged or credited appropriately for their PIP and
COPIP transactions and is designed to enhance competition in auction
transactions on BOX. Submitting an order is entirely voluntary and
Participants can determine which type of order they wish to submit, if
any, to the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
change will not impose an undue burden on intermarket competition as
the proposed change will allow BOX to better compete for SPY order
flow. Further, as stated above the fees and credits

proposed are in line with the facilitation and solicitation fees and
credits currently on BOX.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\12\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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-BOX-2020-34 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2020-34. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2020-34, and should be submitted on
or before September 16, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18679 Filed 8-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EGU Controls; Atlanta Nonattainment Area

Prepared by B. Pearce

NOx Control: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), VISTAS removal efficiency = 82.5 % (VISTAS 2012 Projection Emission Inventory, MACTEC)

SO2 Control: Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD), required removal efficiency per (uuu) = 95 %, VISTAS removal efficiency = 95 % (VISTAS 2012 Projection Emission Inventory, MACTEC).

PM Control:  ESPs began operation prior to 2007.  The PM2.5 control factor due to FGD was assumed to be 50% according to Table 5.4-1 on page 5.4-24 of EPA document "Stationary Source Control Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter" (EC/R Incorporated, 1998).

Control Order (Upstream to Downstream):  SCR, ESP, FGD

Attainment Year (Base Year) for Atlanta Maintenance Plan Emissions Inventories is 2008 [note: attainment year for other nonattainment areas is different]

EGU Control Dates: Atlanta PM2.5 NAA

Plant/Unit	County	NOx Control

Operation (SCR)	NOx Control (SCR)

required by

rule (sss)1	SO2 Control

Operation (FGD)	SO2 Control (FGD)

required by

rule (sss)	Other Controls	Comments

Bowen 1	Bartow	2001(ozone season oper.)	6/1/10	6/1/10	6/1/10	LNB/OFA

ESP

	Bowen 2	Bartow	2001(ozone season oper.)	6/1/09	5/1/09	6/1/09	LNB/OFA

ESP

	Bowen 3	Bartow	2002 (ozone season oper.)	12/31/08	5/1/08	12/31/08 LNB/OFA

ESP

	Bowen 4	Bartow	2002 (ozone season oper.)	12/31/08	12/1/08	12/31/08 LNB/OFA

ESP

Branch 1	Putnam

12/31/13

12/31/13	LNB

ESP

	GA Power has filed request to GA PSC to shut down Unit 1 in 20132

Branch 2	Putnam

12/31/13

12/31/13 	LNB

ESP

	GA Power has filed request to GA PSC to shut down Unit 2 in 20132

Branch 3	Putnam

6/1/15

6/1/15	LNB

ESP

	Branch 4	Putnam

6/1/15

6/1/15	LNB

ESP

McDonough 1	Cobb

4/30/123

4/30/123	LNB/OFA, ESP	Will replace with one gas-fired generating block in 2012 Q2

McDonough 2	Cobb

12/31/113

12/31/113	LNB/OFA, ESP	Will replace with two gas-fired generating blocks in 2011 Q4

Plant/Unit	County	NOx Control

Operation (SCR)	NOx Control (SCR)

required by

rule (sss)1	SO2 Control

Operation (FGD)	SO2 Control (FGD)

required by

rule (sss)	Other Controls	Comments

Wansley 1	Heard	2002 (ozone season oper.)	12/31/08	12/1/08	12/31/08 LNB/OFA

ESP

	Wansley 2	Heard	2003 (ozone season oper.)	12/31/09	5/1/09	12/31/09 LNB/OFA

ESP

Yates 1	Coweta

No requirement	prior to 2008 – but not required	12/31/08	LNB

ESP

	Yates 2 - 5	Coweta

No requirement

No requirement	ESPs

	Yates 6	Coweta

6/1/15

6/1/15	LNB

ESP

	Yates 7	Coweta

6/1/15

6/1/15	LNB

ESP

(1) year-round operation required

(2)  Source:  Georgia Power Integrated Resource Plan, updated August 2011

(3)  Georgia Power will shut down McDonough’s coal-fired Units 1 and 2 by these dates and replace them with three new gas-fired combined cycle (combustion turbine and duct burner) blocks of 840 MW each.  Annual potential emissions from the three generating blocks were estimated in the PSD Prelimary Determination dated November 2007 (see Permit Application No. 17297 and Permit 4911-067-0003-V-02-2 ).  NOx emissions from each block will be controlled by an SCR and a low-NOx burner.

	Blk 4 annual

emissions 	Blk 5 annual

emissions 	Blk 6 annual

emissions

SO2 (tons)	19	19	18

NOx( tons)	217	217	200

PM10 (tons)	203	203	175

Bowen – Removal Efficiencies of Added Controls

Plant/Unit

             	2008 Controls

NOx

SO2

PM/Hg	Controls Added after 2008

NOx

SO2

PM/Hg	Removal Efficiency of Added Controls 	Efficiency Basis	Requirement for additional control	Comments

Bowen 1

	SCR (ozone season)

LNB/OFA	SCR Oct - April	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss)

none	FGD (bubbler)	95%	VISTAS inventory	Rules (sss) and (uuu)

ESP	FGD cobenefit	50%	EPA1

Bowen 2	SCR (ozone season)

LNB/OFA	SCR Oct - April	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss)

none	FGD (bubbler)	95%	VISTAS inventory	Rules (sss) and (uuu)

ESP	FGD cobenefit	50%	EPA1

Bowen 3

	SCR (ozone season)

LNB/OFA	SCR Oct - April	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss)

FGD (bubbler) – SEE COMMENT	FGD (bubbler) full year operation – SEE COMMENT	95% - SEE COMMENT	VISTAS inventory	Rules (sss) and (uuu)	FGD was started up in May 2008 and operated for partial year

	ESP	FGD cobenefit	50%	EPA1

Bowen 4

	SCR (ozone season)

LNB/OFA	SCR Oct - April	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss)

none	FGD (bubbler)	95%	VISTAS inventory	Rules (sss) and (uuu)

ESP	FGD cobenefit	50%	EPA1

(1) Table 5.4-1 on page 5.4-24 of EPA document "Stationary Source Control Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter" (EC/R Incorporated, 1998).

Branch – Removal Efficiencies of Added Controls

Plant/Unit

             	2008 Controls

NOx

SO2

PM/Hg	Controls Added after 2008

NOx

SO2

PM/Hg	Removal Efficiency of Added Controls 	Efficiency Basis	Requirement for additional control	Comments

Branch 1

	LNB	SCR 	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss) 	GPC has filed request to GA PSC to shut down Unit 1 in 2013

	none	FGD (bubbler)	95%	VISTAS inventory	Rules (sss) and (uuu)

ESP	FGD cobenefit	50%	EPA1

Branch 2

	LNB	SCR 	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss) 	GPC has filed request to GA PSC to shut down Unit 2 in 2013

	none	FGD (bubbler)	95%	VISTAS inventory	Rules (sss) and (uuu)

ESP	FGD cobenefit	50%	EPA1

Branch 3

	LNB	SCR 	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss)

none	FGD (bubbler)	95%	VISTAS inventory	Rules (sss) and (uuu)

ESP	FGD cobenefit	50%	EPA1

Branch 4

	LNB	SCR 	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss)

none	FGD (bubbler)	95%	VISTAS inventory	Rules (sss) and (uuu)

ESP	FGD cobenefit	50%	EPA1

(1) Table 5.4-1 on page 5.4-24 of EPA document "Stationary Source Control Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter" (EC/R Incorporated, 1998).

Wansley – Removal Efficiencies of Added Controls

Plant/Unit

             	2008 Controls

NOx

SO2

PM/Hg	Controls Added after 2008

NOx

SO2

PM/Hg	Removal Efficiency of Added Controls 	Efficiency Basis	Requirement for additional control	Comments

Wansley 1

	SCR (ozone season)

LNB/OFA	SCR Oct - April	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss)

none	FGD (bubbler)	95%	VISTAS inventory	Rules (sss) and (uuu)

ESP	FGD cobenefit	50%	EPA1

Wansley 2	SCR (ozone season)

LNB/OFA	SCR Oct - April	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss)

none	FGD (bubbler)	95%	VISTAS inventory	Rules (sss) and (uuu)

ESP	FGD cobenefit	50%	EPA1

(1) Table 5.4-1 on page 5.4-24 of EPA document "Stationary Source Control Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter" (EC/R Incorporated, 1998).

Yates – Removal Efficiencies of Added Controls

Plant/Unit

             	2008 Controls

NOx

SO2

PM/Hg	Controls Added after 2008

NOx

SO2

PM/Hg	Removal Efficiency of Added Controls 	Efficiency Basis	Requirement for additional control	Comments

Yates 1

	LNB	SCR 	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss)

FGD (bubbler) 	FGD operation required by rule (sss)	No additional removal	VISTAS inventory; CAMD records	Rules (sss) and (uuu)	CAMD SO2 emissions records for 2006 – 2010 indicate that FGD operating essentially year-round prior to 2007.

	ESP, FGD cobenefit	FGD operation required by rule (sss)	No additional removal

	Yates 6

	LNB	SCR 	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss)

none	FGD (bubbler)	95%	VISTAS inventory	Rules (sss) and (uuu)

ESP	FGD cobenefit	50%	EPA1

Yates 7

	LNB	SCR 	82.5 % 	VISTAS inventory	Rule (sss)

none	FGD (bubbler)	95%	VISTAS inventory	Rules (sss) and (uuu)

ESP	FGD cobenefit	50%	EPA1

(1) Table 5.4-1 on page 5.4-24 of EPA document "Stationary Source Control Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter" (EC/R Incorporated, 1998).

Updated September 2, 2011							page   PAGE  7


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30061-30062]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 45

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0954]

Special Load Line Exemption for Lake Michigan: Petition for
Rulemaking

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Requests for comments on petitions for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of several requests
for a rulemaking, and requests public comment accordingly. The
requesters are petitioning the Coast Guard to establish a special load
line-exempted route on Lake Michigan. This exemption would allow non-
load line river barges to transit along the eastern shore of Lake
Michigan, between Chicago (Calumet Harbor), IL, and Muskegon, MI. This
is similar to an existing exempted route along the western shore
between Calumet and Milwaukee, WI.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before August 25,
2014, or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0954 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
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
document, contact Mr. Thomas Jordan, Naval Architecture Division (CG-
ENG-2), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material on the
rulemaking petition for a special load line exemption on Lake Michigan.
All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this document (USCG-2013-0954) 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. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
search for ``USCG-2013-0954,'' click ``Open the docket folder'' and
click the comment button. 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
them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
    Viewing the rulemaking petition and comments: To view the petition
and comments that have been submitted to the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, search for ``USCG-2013-0954'' and click ``Open
Docket Folder.'' 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 Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to
use the Docket Management Facility.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

    The requesters are petitioning the Coast Guard to establish a
special load line-exempted route along the eastern shore of Lake
Michigan, which would allow non-load line river barges to transit
between Chicago (Calumet Harbor), IL, and Muskegon, MI. This action
pertains to current load line regulations, and the use of non-load line
river barges on Lake Michigan (particularly on the Milwaukee and Burns
Harbor routes; these are discussed further below).
    Load line assignment. Most commercial vessels that are 79 feet in
length or longer, and that proceed on domestic or international voyages
outside the U.S. Boundary Line (including voyages on the Great Lakes)
must be assigned a load line. The purpose of load line assignment is to
ensure the overall seaworthiness of the vessel. This is accomplished
through the application of several design and construction
requirements, such as: Robust hull construction that can withstand
severe sea conditions; protection of critical openings (such as
hatchways, doors, ventilators, etc.) with weathertight or watertight
closures; ensuring that the vessel has adequate stability and strength
for all operating conditions; and limiting the loaded draft (by use of
load line marks) to ensure that the vessel is not overloaded and has
reserve buoyancy.
    Furthermore, the vessel must be surveyed annually (by a surveyor
from the load line assigning authority) to verify that all of these
features are maintained in operable condition, and that no damage or
modification has been done to the vessel that compromises its
seaworthiness. The benefit in meeting these requirements is that the
vessel is considered safe and seaworthy enough for offshore voyages,
even under severe weather conditions. This gives the operator maximum
flexibility in the commercial employment of the vessel. There are costs
associated with load line assignment, however: Higher construction cost
for the vessel, and the cost of the annual surveys.
    Because river barges are not exposed to any sea conditions, they
are not typically constructed to meet the load line standards for
coastwise, offshore, or Great Lakes service. Although this makes them
less expensive to build and operate, they do not qualify for load line

assignment and therefore are not normally permitted to operate outside
the Boundary Line.
    (More information on load lines and the Boundary Line can be found
on the Coast Guard's load line Web site at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5212/loadlines.asp)
    Load line-exempted routes on Lake Michigan. At present, river
barges can obtain a special load line that allows them to operate on
Lake Michigan between Calumet and Muskegon, provided that they remain
within 5 miles of the shoreline, transit only under favorable weather
conditions, and only carry dry, non-hazardous cargoes. This load line
is issued by the American Bureau of Shipping, who inspects (surveys)
the vessel each year to ensure its continued seaworthiness.
    Although non-load line river barges are not normally permitted to
operate on the Lake, there are two specific routes where they are so
permitted under restricted conditions: Between Calumet and Burns
Harbor, IL, and between Calumet and Milwaukee, MI. The voyages are
subject to weather limitations and certain other loading restrictions.
The premise for these exempted routes is that weather conditions on the
Lake are often benign, that accurate and timely forecasts are readily
available, and that ports of refuge are close at hand along the route.
This allows the river barges to avoid bad weather and safely transit
along the Lake shore. The specific restrictions for these exempted
routes are found in 46 CFR 45.171, et seq.
    Petition for a special load line exemption. In order to promote
barge transportation of certain agricultural products and cargoes, the
petitioners have submitted to the Coast Guard a request to create a
load line-exempted route along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan.
These requests can be viewed in the docket, but to summarize: The
request would effectively extend the existing Burns Harbor exemption up
the eastern shore of Lake Michigan to Muskegon, MI. The actual
restrictions would be very similar to those for the Milwaukee route.
    The benefit of the exemption is that it would allow non-hazardous
cargoes to be loaded onto ordinary, non-load line river barges at
inland Mississippi River terminals for direct delivery to Muskegon and
intermediate Lake ports, and for agricultural products to be similarly
transported to downriver terminals.

Request for Comments

    In deciding whether or not to move forward with the requested
rulemaking, the Coast Guard must consider several issues: The safety of
the operation, protection of the marine environment, resource demands
on the Coast Guard (particularly compliance verification and
enforcement), and the potential economic costs and benefits.
    Public comments on these issues, as well as other points that are
pertinent to this petition, are encouraged. Upon review, the Coast
Guard will decide whether or not to proceed with a rulemaking to
establish the proposed exempted route.
    This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 46
U.S.C. 5108.

    Dated: May 19, 2014.
F.J. Sturm,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-11931 Filed 5-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11822-11824]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04886]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those
buildings.

DATES: The effective date of June 2, 2016 which has been established
for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing
the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov by the effective date indicated
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals
resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

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

    Dated: February 4, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Lycoming County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1510
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borough of Hughesville.................  Borough Office, 147 South 5th
                                          Street, Hughesville, PA 17737.
Borough of Jersey Shore................  Borough Office, 232 Smith
                                          Street, Jersey Shore, PA
                                          17740.
Borough of Montgomery..................  Borough Hall, 35 South Main
                                          Street, Montgomery, PA 17752.
Borough of Montoursville...............  Borough Hall, 617 North
                                          Loyalsock Avenue,
                                          Montoursville, PA 17754.
Borough of Muncy.......................  Borough Hall, 14 North
                                          Washington Street, Muncy, PA
                                          17756.
Borough of Picture Rocks...............  Borough Building, 113 North
                                          Main Street, Picture Rocks, PA
                                          17762.
Borough of Salladasburg................  145 Black Horse Alley,
                                          Salladasburg, PA 17740.

Borough of South Williamsport..........  Borough Building, 329 West
                                          Southern Avenue, South
                                          Williamsport, PA 17702.
City of Williamsport...................  City Hall, 245 West 4th Street,
                                          Williamsport, PA 17701.
Township of Anthony....................  Anthony Township Building, 402
                                          Dutch Hill Road, Cogan
                                          Station, PA 17725.
Township of Armstrong..................  Armstrong Township Building,
                                          502 Waterdale Road,
                                          Williamsport, PA 17702.
Township of Bastress...................  Bastress Township Building, 518
                                          Cold Water Town Road,
                                          Williamsport, PA 17702.
Township of Brady......................  Brady Township Building, 1986
                                          Elimsport Road, Montgomery, PA
                                          17752.
Township of Brown......................  18254 Route 414 Highway, Cedar
                                          Run, PA 17727.
Township of Cascade....................  Cascade Township Building, 1456
                                          Kellyburg Road, Trout Run, PA
                                          17771.
Township of Clinton....................  Clinton Township Building, 2106
                                          State Route 54, Montgomery, PA
                                          17752.
Township of Cogan House................  Cogan House Township Building,
                                          4609 Route 184 Highway, Trout
                                          Run, PA 17771.
Township of Cummings...................  Cummings Township Building,
                                          10978 Route 44, Waterville, PA
                                          17776.
Township of Eldred.....................  Eldred Township Fire Company
                                          Building, 5558 Warrensville
                                          Road, Montoursville, PA 17754.
Township of Fairfield..................  Fairfield Township Building,
                                          834 Fairfield Church Road,
                                          Montoursville, PA 17754.
Township of Franklin...................  Franklin Township Building, 61
                                          School Lane, Lairdsville, PA
                                          17742.
Township of Gamble.....................  Gamble Township Building, 17
                                          Beech Valley Road, Trout Run,
                                          PA 17771.
Township of Hepburn....................  Hepburn Township Office, 615
                                          State Route 973 East Highway,
                                          Cogan Station, PA 17728.
Township of Jackson....................  Jackson Township Building, 3809
                                          Williamson Trail, Liberty, PA
                                          16930.
Township of Jordan.....................  Jordan Township Building, 4298
                                          Route 42 Highway, Unityville,
                                          PA 17774.
Township of Lewis......................  Lewis Township Building, 69
                                          Main Street, Trout Run, PA
                                          17771.
Township of Limestone..................  Limestone Township Building,
                                          6253 South Route 44 Highway,
                                          Jersey Shore, PA 17740.
Township of Loyalsock..................  Loyalsock Township Building,
                                          2501 East 3rd Street,
                                          Williamsport, PA 17701.
Township of Lycoming...................  Lycoming Township Municipal
                                          Building, 328 Dauber Road,
                                          Cogan Station, PA 17728.
Township of McHenry....................  McHenry Township Community
                                          Center, 145 Railroad Street,
                                          Cammal, PA 17723.
Township of McIntyre...................  McIntyre Township Building,
                                          10975 Route 14, Ralston, PA
                                          17763.
Township of McNett.....................  McNett Township Building, 1785
                                          Yorktown Road, Roaring Branch,
                                          PA 17765.
Township of Mifflin....................  Mifflin Township Building, 106
                                          First Fork Road, Jersey Shore,
                                          PA 17740.
Township of Mill Creek.................  Mill Creek Township Building,
                                          2063 Woodley Hollow Road,
                                          Montoursville, PA 17754.
Township of Moreland...................  Moreland Township Building,
                                          1220 Moreland Township Road,
                                          Muncy, PA 17756.
Township of Muncy......................  Muncy Fire Hall, 1922 Pond
                                          Road, Pennsdale, PA 17756.
Township of Muncy Creek................  Muncy Creek Township Building,
                                          575 Route 442 Highway, Muncy,
                                          PA 17756.
Township of Old Lycoming...............  Old Lycoming Township Municipal
                                          Office, 1951 Green Avenue,
                                          Williamsport, PA 17701.
Township of Penn.......................  Penn Township Building, 4600
                                          Beaver Lake Road, Hughesville,
                                          PA 17737.
Township of Piatt......................  Piatt Township Building, 9687
                                          North Route 220 Highway,
                                          Jersey Shore, PA 17740.
Township of Pine.......................  Pine Township Building, 925
                                          Oregon Hill Road, Morris, PA
                                          16938.
Township of Plunketts Creek............  Plunketts Creek Township
                                          Building, 179 Dunwoody Road,
                                          Williamsport, PA 17701.
Township of Porter.....................  Porter Township Building, 5
                                          Shaffer Lane, Jersey Shore, PA
                                          17740.
Township of Shrewsbury.................  Shrewsbury Township Building,
                                          143 Point Bethel Road,
                                          Hughesville, PA 17737.
Township of Susquehanna................  Susquehanna Township Office
                                          Building, 91 East Village
                                          Drive, Williamsport, PA 17702.
Township of Upper Fairfield............  Upper Fairfield Township
                                          Building, 4090 Route 87
                                          Highway, Montoursville, PA
                                          17754.
Township of Washington.................  Washington Township Building,
                                          15973 South Route 44 Highway,
                                          Allenwood, PA 17810.
Township of Watson.....................  Watson Township Building, 4635
                                          North State Route 44, Jersey
                                          Shore, PA 17740.
Township of Wolf.......................  Wolf Township Building, 695
                                          Route 405 Highway,
                                          Hughesville, PA 17737.

Township of Woodward...................  Woodward Township Building,
                                          4910 South Route 220 Highway,
                                          Linden, PA 17744.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-04886 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40630-40631]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17592]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0031]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 53 individuals from the
prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)
against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from
operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The
exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on July 19, 2018. The exemptions
expire on July 19, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
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 http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On June 18, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 53 individuals requesting an exemption from diabetes
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and requested comments from the
public (83 FR 28310). The public comment period ended on July 18, 2018,
and two comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. Vicky Johnson from
the Minnesota Department of Public Safety stated that Minnesota has no
objections to granting diabetes exemptions to Bobby R. Isaacson, and
Heath A. Woodiwiss.
    Mick Torok from N.A.T. Transportation, Inc. stated that he has no
objections to granting a diabetes exemption to Zachary Fairbanks.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on the program eligibility criteria and an individualized
assessment of information submitted by each applicant. The
qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in the June 18, 2018, Federal
Register notice (83 FR 28310) and will not be repeated in this notice.
    These 53 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 34 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two
or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past five years. In each
case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by
the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a
comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within
two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia,
significant complications, or inability to manage

diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse
event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an
episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at
the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) each driver must
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file, or keeping a copy in his/
her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver
must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation
to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 53 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:

Jason M. Abbott (OH)
Casey L. Alt (CO)
Joseph E. Beach (OH)
Eli A. Berkowitz (NJ)
Todd O. Blackwell (ID)
Joel H. Blancett, Jr. (NM)
Robert H. Blowers (OH)
David R. Booth (CT)
Travis W. Bradford (KY)
Darrel L. Burke (SD)
Bryan D. Cash (MI)
Marty A. Collins (OK)
Gino R. Couch (IN)
James D. Denison (IA)
David L. Derossett, Jr. (IN)
John L. Enterkin (IN)
William H. Ervin (NC)
Scot A. Etgen (OH)
Zachary D. Fairbanks (OH)
Ward W. Genzel (MT)
Kasey D. Green (CA)
Justin A. Hamic (AL)
Philip F. Headington (IA)
Jason A. Hendrickson (WA)
Bobby R. Isaacson (MN)
John W. Johnson (FL)
Douglas E. Kanesky, Jr. (AZ)
William D. Kincaid, Jr. (MA)
David W. Koch (PA)
Christopher N. Lacy (WV)
John G. Lopez (TX)
David E. Marvin (IA)
Bruce R. McDaniel (OK)
Edward A. Oikemus, Jr. (MD)
Tony L. Pennywell (FL)
Blake T. Pinkston (IN)
Dustin C. Riley (NY)
Wes D. Rodrigue (NH)
Jonathan C. Shultz (IA)
Michael P. Scott (SC)
Patrick E. Sevier (IA)
Keith O. Shaw, Sr. (IL)
Rosalie A. Silva (CA)
James R. Sizemore (VA)
David A. Stedford (CT)
Geraldine St-Germain (NJ)
Theodore F. Stuard II (IN)
Richard J. Taylor (IL)
Chris A. Voelker (IA)
Benjamin B. Webb (NC)
Donnie E. Winters (MS)
Heath A. Woodiwiss (MN)
Anthony K. Zelinsky (NJ)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following
occurs: (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 prior to being granted; or (3) continuation
of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives
of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

    Issued on: August 8, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-17592 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53356-53357]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0846; Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-18]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Greenfield, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Greenfield,
IA. Decommissioning of the Greenfield non-directional beacon (NDB) at
Greenfield Municipal Airport, Greenfield, IA, has made this action
necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations at Greenfield Municipal Airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before October 11,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2011-0846/Airspace Docket No. 11-
ACE-18, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0846/
Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-18.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures
at Greenfield Municipal Airport Airport, Greenfield, IA. Airspace
reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the
Greenfield NDB and the cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations
at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would modify controlled airspace at Greenfield Municipal Airport
Airport, Greenfield, IA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 18,
2010, and effective September 15, 2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Greenfield, IA [Amended]

Greenfield Municipal Airport, IA
    (Lat. 41[deg]19'38'' N., long. 94[deg]26'43'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Greenfield Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on August 17, 2011.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-21920 Filed 8-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 29447]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10398]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10009-12-Region 4]

Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection
Restrictions; Petition for Exemption Reissuance--Class I Hazardous
Waste Injection; The Chemours Company, FC, LLC, Chemours Titanium
Technologies DeLisle Plant, Pass Christian, Mississippi

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a final decision on a UIC no migration petition
reissuance.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a reissuance of an exemption to
the Land Disposal Restrictions, under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, has
been granted to The Chemours Company for Class I hazardous waste
injection wells located at their Pass Christian, Mississippi facility.
The company has adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the EPA
by the petition reissuance application and supporting documentation
that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration
of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the
waste remains hazardous. This final decision allows the underground
injection by The Chemours Company of the specific restricted hazardous
wastes identified in this exemption reissuance request, into Class I
hazardous waste injection Wells 2, 3, 4, and 5 until December 31, 2050,
unless the EPA moves to terminate this exemption. Additional conditions
included in this final decision may be reviewed by contacting the EPA
Region 4 Ground Water, UIC, and GIS Section. A public notice was issued
November 12, 2019 and the public comment period closed on December 31,
2019, and no comments were received. This decision constitutes final
Agency action and there is no Administrative appeal.

DATES: EPA approved the action on February 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition reissuance and all pertinent
information relating thereto are on file at the following location:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Division, Safe
Drinking Water Branch, 61 Forsyth Street Northeast, Atlanta, Georgia
30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richie Hall, EPA Region 4,
Groundwater, UIC, and GIS Section, by mail at the Atlanta street
address given above, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 8, 2020.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Director, Water Division, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-10398 Filed 5-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P