[Federal Register: June 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 36788-36789]
[DOCID:fr28jn06-78]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0385; FRL-8074-5]

Permethrin Reregistration Eligibility Decision; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) for the pesticide permethrin, and opens a
public comment period on this document. The Agency's risk assessments
and other related documents also are available in the permethrin
Docket. Permethrin is part of the pyrethroid class of pesticides and
was first registered in 1979. It is a broad spectrum, non-systemic,
synthetic pyrethroid insecticide, and is registered for use on numerous
food/feed crops, livestock and livestock housing, modes of
transportation, structures, buildings, Public Health Mosquito abatement
programs, numerous indoor and outdoor residential spaces, pets, and
clothing. EPA has reviewed permethrin through the public participation
process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing
pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through
these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health
and safety standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0385, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2004-0385. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., 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 in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Guerry, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.

    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to
ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. EPA
has completed a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for the
pesticide, permethrin under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. Permethrin is
part of the pyrethroid class of pesticides and was first registered in
1979. It is a broad spectrum, non-systemic, synthetic pyrethroid
insecticide, and is registered for use on numerous food/feed crops,
livestock and livestock housing, modes of transportation, structures,
buildings, Public Health Mosquito abatement programs, numerous indoor
and outdoor residential spaces, pets, and clothing. EPA has determined
that the data base to support reregistration is substantially complete
and that products containing permethrin are eligible for
reregistration, provided the risks are mitigated either in the manner
described in the RED or by another means that achieves equivalent risk
reduction. Upon submission of any required product specific data under
section 4(g)(2)(B) and any necessary changes to the registration and
labeling (either to address concerns identified in the RED or as a
result of product specific data), EPA will make a final reregistration
decision under section 4(g)(2)(C) for products containing permethrin.
    EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in
effect when the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in
August 1996, to ensure that these existing pesticide residue limits for
food and feed commodities meet the safety standard established by the
new law. Tolerances are considered reassessed once the safety finding
has been made or a revocation occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the
requisite safety finding for the permethrin tolerances included in this
notice.
    Although the permethrin RED was signed on April 6, 2006, certain
components of the document, which did not affect the final regulatory
decision, were undergoing final editing at that time. These components,
including the list of additional generic data requirements, summary of
labeling changes, appendices, and other relevant information, have been
added to the permethrin RED document. None of these additions alter the
conclusions documented in the April 6, 2006, permethrin RED.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004, (69 FR 26819)(FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be
commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
Due to its uses, risks, and other factors, permethrin was reviewed
through the modified 4-Phase process. Through this process, EPA worked
extensively with stakeholders and the public to reach the regulatory
decisions for permethrin.
    The reregistration program is being conducted under Congressionally
mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely
decisions and to involve the public. The Agency is issuing the
permethrin RED for public comment. This comment period is intended to
provide an additional opportunity for public input and a mechanism for
initiating any necessary amendments to the RED. All comments should be
submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA
on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the
Agency Docket for permethrin. Comments received after the close of the
comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider
these late comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the
Docket and regulations.gov. If any comment significantly affects the
document, EPA also will publish an amendment to the RED in the Federal
Register. In the absence of substantive comments requiring changes, the
permethrin RED will be implemented as it is now presented.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission
of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, the Administrator
shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient
are eligible for reregistration, before calling in product specific
data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products
or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''
    Section 408(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for
pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether
the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2)
or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to be completed by August 3, 2006.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 15, 2006.
 Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 06-5853 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


45788 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 2003 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 19 and 27 [ FRL   7539   3]

Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) ACTION: Proposed Rule; Technical Corrections.

SUMMARY: EPA is correcting the proposed rule that appeared in the July 3, 2003 Federal Register at ( 68 FR 39882), entitled `` Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule,'' as mandated by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, to adjust EPA's civil monetary penalties for inflation on a periodic basis. This notice creates no new regulatory requirements. Rather, it corrects the effective date for the proposed rule which was mistakenly listed as July 3, 2003 in the Federal Register notice of the same date. DATES: The comment period for the previously published proposal ( 68 FR 39882, July 3, 2003) ends on August 4, 2003. ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to the Docket Office, Enforcement & Compliance Docket and Information Center ( 2201AT), Docket Number EC   2001   008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room B133, Washington, DC 20460 ( in triplicate, if possible). Please use a font size no smaller than 12. Written comments may be delivered in person to: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B133, Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically to docket. oeca@ epa. gov or faxed to ( 202) 566   1511. Attach electronic comments as an ASCii ( text) file, and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Be sure to include the docket number, EC   2001   008, on your document. Public comments, if any, may be reviewed at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket Information Center, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B133, Washington, DC 20460. Persons interested in reviewing this docket may do so by calling ( 202) 566   1512. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Abdalla, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Multimedia Enforcement Division, Mail Code 2248A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, ( 202) 564   2413. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Reasons and Basis for Today's Notice In its review of the July 3, 2003 proposed rule ( 68 FR 39882), issued pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 ( Pub. L. 104   134, 110 Stat. 1321), EPA identified errors in certain sections of the regulatory language of the proposal referring to the effective date. Today's notice corrects these errors to reflect that the effective date of the final rule will be the date the final rule is published, and not July 3, 2003, the date on which the proposed rule was published.

II. Public Comment Period Today's notice does not create any new regulatory requirement. EPA believes that the July 3, 2003 notice presented the substance of the proposed rule sufficiently to allow interested persons to understand all aspects of the proposed rule and to make comments. Consequently, EPA finds that it is not necessary to extend the comment period for the proposed rule. The comment period will still close on August 4, 2003.

Dated: July 29, 2003. John Peter Suarez, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The following corrections are made to FRL   7522   4 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule; Proposed Rule, published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2003 ( 68 FR 39882): 1. In Section 19.2 of the regulatory text, change both references to the date `` July 3, 2003'' to ``[ date of publication of final rule].'' 2. In footnote 1 to Section 27.3( a)( 1)( iv) of the regulatory text, change the reference to the date `` July 3, 2003'' to ``[ date of publication of final rule].''

[ FR Doc. 03   19738 Filed 8   1   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P VerDate jul< 14> 2003 12: 58 Aug 01, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04AUP1. SGM 04AUP1


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11849-11852]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04552]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71609; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2013-72; SR-NYSEMKT-2013-91]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
MKT LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether To
Disapprove Proposed Rule Changes To Establish an Institutional
Liquidity Program on a One-Year Pilot Basis

February 25, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On November 7, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and
NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'' and together with NYSE, the ``Exchanges'')
each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
establish an Institutional Liquidity Program (``ILP'' or ``Program'')
on one-year pilot basis. The proposed rule changes were published for
comment in the Federal Register on November 27, 2013.\3\ The Commission
received three comments on the NYSE Proposal.\4\ On January 9, 2014,
the Commission designated a longer period for Commission action on the
proposed rule changes, until February 25, 2014.\5\ The Exchanges
submitted a consolidated response letter on January 14, 2014.\6\ This
order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70909 (November 21,
2013), 78 FR 71002 (SR-NYSE-2013-72) (``NYSE Proposal''); and 70910
(November 21, 2013), 78 FR 70992 (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-91) (``NYSE MKT
Proposal'') (collectively, the ``Proposals'').
    \4\ See Letters to the Commission from James Allen, Head, and
Rhodri Pierce, Director, Capital Markets Policy, CFA Institute (Dec.
18, 2013) (``CFA Letter''); Clive Williams, Vice President and
Global Head of Trading, Andrew M. Brooks, Vice President and Head of
U.S. Equity Trading, and Christopher P. Hayes, Vice President and
Legal Counsel, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (Dec. 18, 2013) (``T.
Rowe Price Letter''); and Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (Dec. 20, 2013) (``SIFMA Letter''). The Commission notes
that these comment letters address the NYSE Proposal only. However,
since the Proposals are nearly identical, the Commission will
consider the letters to address the NYSE MKT Proposal as well.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71267, 79 FR 2738
(January 15, 2014).
    \6\ See Letter to the Commission from Janet McGinnis, EVP &
Corporate Secretary, NYSE Euronext (Jan. 14, 2014) (``Response
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposals

A. Overview

    Each Exchange is proposing to establish, for a pilot term of one
year, an Institutional Liquidity Program intended to attract buying and
selling interest in greater size to the NYSE for NYSE-listed securities
and to NYSE MKT for NYSE MKT-listed securities and securities listed on
the Nasdaq Stock Market and traded pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges. To do so, the Program would introduce two new order types
to facilitate interactions between market participants with block-size
trading interest and liquidity providers that submit orders that meet
certain size thresholds. The Exchanges have characterized the Program
as a ``targeted size discovery mechanism'' that would enable market
participants to execute trades that are larger than the average size of
trades executed on the Exchanges or in most dark pools.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., NYSE Proposal, 78 FR at 71002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed New Order Types--ILOs and OLOs

    The two proposed order types are the ``Institutional Liquidity
Order'' (``ILO'') and the ``Oversize Liquidity Order'' (``OLO'').
Generally, ILOs would represent non-displayed block-size interest: a
limit order of at least 5,000 shares with a market value of at least
$50,000 or a ``child'' order of an original ``parent order'' meeting
these size requirements.\8\ OLOs would represent non-displayed orders
of at least 500 shares (or at least 300 shares for less liquid
securities) submitted to provide liquidity to ILOs. ILOs could be
submitted with a Minimum Triggering Volume (``MTV'') instruction and
would interact first with displayed interest at the Exchanges before
interacting with other interest in the Program (i.e., OLOs and other
resting ILOs) or routing to other markets. OLOs would interact only
with ILOs. Orders within the Program would be executed according to
price-size-time priority, rather than the Exchanges' parity allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Where an ILO represented the child order of recorded parent
instructions, the parent instruction would not need to be submitted
in whole to the Program; instead, parts of the recorded parent order
instruction could be executed in the Program, on the Exchanges
outside of the Program, or at other venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify as an ILO, an order would need to be submitted to
establish, increase, liquidate, or decrease a position in the subject
security and could not be part of an expression of two-sided (i.e.,
market making) interest

on the part of the account that originated the order. An ILO, or the
recorded parent instruction of a child order, would need to satisfy
applicable size requirements independently, meaning that interest could
not be aggregated across multiple member organizations \9\ to become
eligible for participation in the Program. An ILO, or recorded parent
order instruction, that initially met the minimum size requirements
would not become ineligible to stay in the Program if it received a
partial execution that reduced its size below the minimum size
requirements. If an ILO or its recorded parent instruction were
partially cancelled so that it became smaller than the Program's
minimum size requirements, the ILO would no longer be eligible to
participate in the Program but would maintain its time priority in the
Exchanges' systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``member organization'' is defined in NYSE Rule
2(b) and NYSE MKT Rule 2(b)--Equities, respectively, and includes
Floor brokers acting as agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An ILO could be designated Immediate-or-Cancel or entered as a
Reserve Order, in which case the order or any residual unexecuted
portion would remain executable against contra-side interest in
accordance with the Program's rules. An ILO could also be submitted
with an MTV requirement that would be a necessary condition for the
order's execution.
    ILOs could be submitted with one of two designations to dictate how
and where they could execute. A Type-1 designated ILO would interact
with other interest at the Exchange to which it was submitted, but it
would not route to other markets. A Type-1 ILO would interact, at each
price level, first with displayed interest in the respective Exchange's
systems, then available contra-side OLOs and ILOs in size-time
priority, and then with any remaining non-displayed interest in the
Exchange's systems--except that a Type 1-designated ILO would not trade
through a protected quotation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Any remaining portion of a Type-1 ILO would be cancelled if
designated as a Regulation NMS-compliant Immediate or Cancel Order
pursuant to NYSE Rule 13 or NYSE MKT Rule 13--Equities, or if it
were designated as a Reserve Order, it would rest on the Exchange's
book and be available to interact with other incoming contra-side
OLOs, ILOs, and other available interest in the Exchange's systems,
provided it does not trade through a protected quotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Type-2 ILO would interact with other interest at the Exchange to
which it was submitted, but it could also route to away markets. The
Type-2 ILO would interact, at each price level, first with displayed
interest in the respective Exchange's systems, then available contra-
side OLOs and ILOs in size-time priority, and then with any remaining
non-displayed interest in the Exchange's systems; it would then route
to away markets as necessary to avoid trading through a protected
quotation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Any remaining portion of a Type-2 ILO would be cancelled if
designated as an Immediate or Cancel Order pursuant to NYSE Rule 13
or NYSE MKT Rule 13--Equities, or if designated as a Reserve Order,
rest on the Exchange's book and be available to interact with other
incoming contra-side OLOs, ILOs, and other available interest in the
Exchange's systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Program would require member organizations that submit ILOs to
maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that
applicable Program requirements are satisfied. The member organizations
would further need to maintain records sufficient to reconstruct, in a
time-sequenced manner, all orders routed to the Exchanges as ILOs,
including how parent order instructions from which child-order ILOs
were derived met the Program's size requirements and related to the
child-order ILOs.
    The Exchanges would allow a member organization to presume that an
account's intent to establish, increase, liquidate, or decrease a
position was bona fide, absent concrete indications to the contrary.
According to the Exchanges, examples of such contrary indications
include: (1) An account attempting to enter contemporaneous orders in
the same security on both sides of the market; (2) An account entering
a pattern of orders and cancellations apparently designed to implement
a market-making or spread-trading strategy; and (3) An account entering
a pattern of cancellations that consistently produced positions that
were smaller that the Program's minimum size requirements.
    In addition to the ILO, the Program would create a second new order
type, the OLO. The OLO would be a non-displayed limit order with a
minimum size of 500 shares, except for securities that trade with an
Average Daily Volume of less than one million shares, in which case the
minimum size would be 300 shares. An OLO that met the minimum size
requirement and received a partial execution that reduced its size
below the size requirement would still be eligible to interact with
incoming ILOs. An OLO would become size ineligible if the size of the
OLO was reduced below the minimum size requirement because of a partial
cancellation. An OLO could be priced at, inside, or outside the
Exchange's protected best bid or offer (``PBBO''), or as non-displayed
Primary Pegging Interest pursuant to NYSE Rule 13 or NYSE MKT Rule 13--
Equities. As noted above, OLOs would be eligible to interact only with
ILOs.
    The Exchanges, along with the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA''), would monitor activity in the Program and
conduct surveillance for non-compliance with Program rules. The
Exchanges would exclude non-compliant member organizations from
participation in the Program when necessary to ensure that the Program
functions properly.

C. Proposed Priority and Allocation of Proposed Order Types

    The Exchanges have proposed that, in the Program, competing OLOs
and ILOs would be ranked and allocated according to price, then size,
then the time of their entry into each Exchange's systems. The size
priority of OLOs and ILOs would be based upon their initial size at
time of entry, but any partial cancellations of OLOs or ILOs would
reduce their original size for priority purposes.
    Displayed orders would have priority over equally priced ILOs and
OLOs. An incoming ILO would execute first against displayed interest,
then against contra-side ILOs and OLOs, and finally against any non-
displayed interest in Exchange systems. Any remaining unexecuted ILO
interest would remain available to interact with other incoming OLOs or
ILOs if that ILO interest were at an eligible price, unless that
interest were designated IOC.

D. Proposed Liquidity Identifier

    The presence of OLOs or the remainder of partially executed ILOs in
Exchange systems would be advertised with a new indicator, the
Liquidity Identifier (``Identifier''), which would be disseminated
through the Consolidated Quotation System. The Identifier would
communicate only the presence of liquidity in a symbol and would not
state the side, size, or price. The Exchanges have stated that the
Identifier would be disseminated first by the Exchanges' proprietary
data feeds. The Exchanges have represented that the Identifier would be
disseminated through the publicly-available Consolidated Quotation
System as soon as practicable.

E. Fees for the Program

    The Exchanges have represented that, after approval of the Program
by the Commission, they would each submit a proposed rule filing to set
fees for the Program. The Exchanges have represented that the
anticipated fee schedule would charge member organizations for
executions of their

ILOs against OLOs and, conversely, would provide credits or free
executions to member organizations for executions of their OLOs against
the ILOs of other member organizations. If two ILOs executed against
each other, the Exchanges expect that they would charge both member
organizations.

III. Comments Letters and the Exchanges' Response

    As noted above, the Commission has received three comment letters
on the proposed Program. One commenter was supportive of the
Proposals.\12\ This commenter stated its belief that the Program should
improve the executions of institutional investors trading in large size
and reduce transaction costs in such trades.\13\ Additionally, the
commenter stated its belief that the ability of ILOs to interact with
displayed orders should not negatively affect, and may even positively
affect, the incentives to use displayed markets.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See CFA Letter.
    \13\ Id. at 2.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two remaining commenters expressed concern with the Program.
Both commenters suggested that the Program would add undue complexity
to the public equity markets. For instance, one commenter argued that
the Program's introduction of new order types would create another
layer of quoting, additional messaging, and undue complexity to order
routing.\15\ The other commenter questioned whether it is appropriate
to add additional message traffic to the Securities Information
Processor, particularly message traffic that serves only one market and
not the investing public at large.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See T. Rowe Price Letter at 1.
    \16\ See SIFMA Letter at 5. This commenter also took the
position that the Program's use of the Liquidity Identifier could
implicate the same concerns that the Commission voiced in 2009 when
it proposed a rule that would, among other things, address the use
of privately transmitted actionable ``indications of interest.'' See
id. at 4 (citing Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60997 (November
13, 2009), 74 FR 61208 (November 23, 2009) (``Regulation of Non-
Public Trading Interest'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two commenters also argued that the Program could segment order
flow in a way that is inconsistent with the role that public exchanges
are supposed to play in the marketplace. One commenter stated its
belief that the Proposals would further chip away at the statutory
mandate that exchanges provide fair, equal, non-discriminatory, and
open access and that the Program would reflect a departure from the
idea that exchanges are meant to provide interaction among all types of
orders.\17\ In this commenter's view, exchanges and dark pools serve
distinct purposes and the Program could ``further blur the lines''
between exchanges and dark pools in a way that ``will unnecessarily
increase market fragmentation and dilute an investor's ability to gauge
best execution.'' \18\ The other commenter raised similar issues and
stated its belief that the Commission should address how permitting an
exchange to segment order flow is consistent with the exchanges'
obligation under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act to prevent unfair
discrimination among market participants.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See T. Rowe Price Letter at 1-2.
    \18\ Id. at 1.
    \19\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, both commenters disagreed with the Exchanges about
the extent to which the Program could provide public benefit. One
commenter questioned whether the Program would in fact encourage lit
markets and increased price discovery, since the new order types would
not be displayed.\20\ The other commenter expressed doubt that the
Program could attract block-size interest and instead thought it was
more likely that the Program would only receive child orders from
larger block-size parent orders.\21\ The commenter then stated its
belief that the goal of increasing exchange execution volumes does not
support a change in legal and regulatory policy.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See T. Rowe Price Letter at 2.
    \21\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, the Exchanges' Response Letter
contended that the Program is justified by the potential benefits it
could provide to the public markets. According to the Exchanges, the
Program would improve market structure by addressing three concerns:
(1) The migration toward dark venues of orders entered by investors who
are less informed with respect to short-term price movements; (2) The
related isolation of such orders from displayed liquidity; and (3) The
selective pre-trade transparency and inadequate post-trade transparency
of broker internalization venues and dark pools.\23\ The Response
Letter asserted that competition with dark pools would provide a more
transparent and price-competitive environment for the interaction of
large orders and would reduce transaction costs; in the Exchanges'
view, Section 11A of the Act promotes such competition. Additionally,
the Exchanges noted that the dissemination of the Identifier could
bolster pre-trade transparency and stimulate further the expression of
institutional interest and the interest of liquidity providers that
seek to interact with institutional orders.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Response Letter at 5.
    \24\ See id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges further argued that, because ILO's must first
interact with displayed orders, ``the Program offers balanced and
limited segmentation to enhance the discovery of size on the Exchanges
and potentially increases the incentives for public price discovery.''
\25\ Ultimately, the Exchanges argued, the Program ``has the potential
to enhance the transparency and price competition associated with the
execution of larger orders and should be considered in the current
competitive and regulatory context rather than deferred until the
fundamental structural issues referenced [by the commenters] are
addressed.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 5-6.
    \26\ Id. at 8. The Exchanges also responded to the point raised
in the SIFMA Letter about whether the Liquidity Identifier could
implicate the same concerns that the Commission has raised with
respect to privately transmitted actionable indications of interest.
The Exchanges noted that the Identifier is different than an
actionable indication of interest because it communicates only the
symbol, not the side, size or price of an OLO or ILO. Furthermore,
the Exchanges noted that the identifier would not be private or
limited to select market participants; rather, the Exchanges noted
their intent to disseminate the identifier through the publicly
available Consolidated Quotation System. See id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether to Disapprove SR-NYSE-2013-72 and
SR-NYSEMKT-2013-91 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \27\ to determine whether the Proposals should
be disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this
time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the Proposals.
Institution of disapproval proceedings does not indicate that the
Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the
issues involved. Rather, as described in greater detail below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the Proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B),\28\ the Commission is providing
notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The
Commission believes that the Program, which would seek to attract
larger trading interest to the Exchanges, raises important market-
structure issues that warrant further public comment and Commission
consideration. The Program would create a separate liquidity pool
within

each Exchange that would not be accessible to all market participants,
and the Commission believes that proceedings are appropriate to
consider (1) Whether the Program's segmentation of order flow would
inhibit price discovery and order interaction on an exchange, (2)
Whether the potential complexity of the Program would detract from the
efficient execution of securities transactions or the maintenance of
fair and orderly markets, (3) Whether the Program would permit unfair
discrimination, and (4) Whether the Program would create an unnecessary
or inappropriate burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis of the proposed rule changes' consistency with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\29\ which requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange promote just and equitable principles of
trade, perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, protect investors and the public interest, and not
permit unfair discrimination, and with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\30\
which requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the
Proposals. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of
interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule changes are
inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be
any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule changes should be
disapproved by March 24, 2014. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 7,
2014.
    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-NYSE-2013-72 or SR-NYSEMKT-2013-91 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-NYSE-2013-72 or SR-
NYSEMKT-2013-91. This file number should be included on the subject
line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2013-72 or SR-NYSEMKT-
2013-91 and should be submitted on or before March 24, 2014. Rebuttal
comments should be submitted by April 7, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04552 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 41 (Friday, March 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13915-13916]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04768]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68975; File No. SR-BYX-2013-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Attestation Requirement of
Rule 11.24 Allowing a Retail Member Organization To Attest That
``Substantially All'' Orders Submitted to The Retail Price Improvement
Program Will Qualify as ``Retail Orders''

February 25, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 12, 2013, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the attestation requirement of
BYX Rule 11.24 to allow a Retail Member Organization \3\ (``RMO'') to
attest that ``substantially all'' orders submitted to the Retail Price
Improvement Program (the ``Program'') will qualify as Retail Orders.\4\
BYX Rule 11.24(b)(2)(C) currently requires RMOs to attest that ``any
order'' will so qualify, effectively preventing certain significant
retail brokers from participating in the Program due to operational
constraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Retail Member Organization is a Member (or a division
thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange under BATS Rule
11.24 to submit Retail Orders.
    \4\ A Retail Order is an agency order that originates from a
natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by a RMO, provided
that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to
price or side of market and the order does not originate from a
trading algorithm or any computerized methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing an amendment to BYX Rule 11.24 to provide
that an RMO may attest that ``substantially all'' of the orders it
submits to the Program are Retail Orders, replacing the requirement
that the RMO must attest that all submitted orders qualify as Retail
Orders. Currently, under BYX Rule 11.24(b)(2)(C), a Member \5\ wishing
to become an RMO must submit: (A) An application form; (B) supporting
documentation; and (C) an attestation that ``any order'' submitted as a
Retail Order will qualify as such under BYX Rule 11.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the categorical nature of the current
attestation language is preventing certain Members with retail
customers from participating in the Program. In particular, the
Exchange understands that some Members wishing to participate in the
Program represent both Retail Orders as well as other agency flow that
may not meet the strict definition of ``Retail Order.'' The Exchange
further understands that limitations in order management systems and
routing networks used by such Members may make it infeasible for them
to isolate 100% of Retail Orders from other agency, non-Retail Order
flow that they would direct to the Program. Unable to make the
categorical attestation required by the current language of BYX Rule
11.24, some Members have chosen not to participate, notwithstanding
that substantially all order flow from such Members would be Retail
Orders. This limitation has the effect of preventing their retail
customers from benefiting from the enhanced price competition and
transparency of the Program.
    Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing a de minimis relaxation of
the RMO attestation requirement in order to accommodate these system
limitations and expand the access of retail customers to the benefits
of the Program. Specifically, as proposed, an RMO would be permitted to
send de minimis quantities of agency orders to the Exchange as Retail
Orders that cannot be explicitly attested to under existing definitions
of the Program.
    The Exchange will issue notice to its Members to make clear that
the ``substantially all'' language is meant to permit the presence of
only isolated and de minimis quantities of agency orders that do not
qualify as Retail Orders that cannot be segregated from Retail Orders
due to systems limitations. In this regard, an RMO would need to
retain, in its books and records, adequate substantiation that
substantially all orders sent to the Exchange as Retail Orders met the
strict definition and that those orders not meeting the strict
definition are agency orders that cannot be segregated from Retail
Orders due to system limitations, and are de minimis

in terms of the overall number of Retail Orders sent to the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The rule change proposed in this submission is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in
that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because, while
the proposed rule change represents a relaxation of the attestation
requirements, the change is a de minimis relaxation that still requires
the RMO applicant to attest that ``substantially all'' of its orders
will qualify as Retail Orders. The slight relaxation will allow enough
flexibility to accommodate system limitations while still ensuring that
only a fractional amount of orders submitted to the Program would not
qualify as Retail Orders.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change promotes just
and equitable principles of trade because it will ensure that similarly
situated Members who have only slight differences in the capability of
their systems will be able to equally benefit from the Program.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it will allow Members, who are
concerned about its system limitations not allowing 100% certification
that submitted orders are Retail Orders, to still participate in the
Program. By removing impediments to participation in the Program, the
proposed change would permit expanded access of retail customers to the
price improvement and transparency offered by the Program and thereby
potentially stimulate further price competition for retail orders.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the amendment, by increasing the level of participation in the Program,
will increase the level of competition around retail executions such
that retail investors would receive better prices than they currently
do on the Exchange and potentially through bilateral internalization
arrangements. The Exchange believes that the transparency and
competitiveness of operating a program such as the Program on an
exchange market would result in better prices for retail investors and
benefits retail investors by expanding the capabilities of Exchanges to
encompass practices currently allowed on non-exchange venues.

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BYX-2013-008 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-BYX-2013-008. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 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-BYX-2013-008, and should be
submitted on or before March 22, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-04768 Filed 2-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 48338-48341]
[DOCID:fr22se09-145]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID. FMCSA-2009-0242]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions from the diabetes
standard; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 23 individuals
for exemptions from the prohibition against persons with insulin-
treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable
these individuals with ITDM to operate commercial motor vehicles in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 22, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2009-0242 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at. http://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    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 statutes also allow the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 23

individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption
from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will
evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether
granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety
mandated by the statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Charles E. Boyle

    Mr. Boyle, age 49, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Boyle meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's License
(CDL) from Nebraska.

John A. Churchill

    Mr. Churchill, 44, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Churchill meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi.

Dennis O. Chynoweth

    Mr. Chynoweth, 38, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Chynoweth meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from South
Carolina.

Warren B. Copple, Jr.

    Mr. Copple, 47, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Coople meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a CDL from Michigan.

Ruben L. Flores

    Mr. Flores, 37, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Flores meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wyoming.

William J. Garber

    Mr. Garber, 81, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Garber meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Virginia.

Richard S. Gino

    Mr. Gino, 58, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gino meets the requirements of
the vision standard at
    49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and
certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class C operators license from California.

Hernan Hernandez

    Mr. Hernandez, 42, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hernandez meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Connecticut.

Devin J. Johansen

    Mr. Johansen, 28, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johansen meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from New
Mexico.

Michael J. Kelly

    Mr. Kelly, 29, has had ITDM since 1987. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss

of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or
resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning
in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring;
and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to
drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kelly meets the requirements of the vision
standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in
2009 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Michigan.

Jeffery E. Kiehl

    Mr. Kiehl, 40, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kiehl meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Michigan.

Dennis Larsen

    Mr. Larsen, 59, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Larsen meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.

Jesus G. Maesse

    Mr. Maesse, 51, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Maesse meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.

Richard M. Munoz

    Mr. Munoz, 47, has had ITDM since 1973. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Munoz meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arizona.

Jackson R. Olive

    Mr. Olive, 27, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Olive meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from New York.

Wayne E. Parry

    Mr. Parry, 54, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Parry meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.

Thomas N. Pico

    Mr. Pico, 39, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pico meets the requirements of
the vision standard at
    49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2009 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Matthew L. Pritchard

    Mr. Pritchard, 37, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Prichard meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.

Paul Ramirez

    Mr. Ramirez, 42, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ramirez meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Oklahoma.

Randall D. Stegemiller

    Mr. Stegemiller, 56, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another

person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stegemiller meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from
Indiana.

Jon C. Thomas

    Mr. Thomas, 43, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thomas meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.

Dennis M. Thyfault

    Mr. Thyfault, 57, has had ITDM since 1970. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thyfault meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Utah.

Howard M. Wilson

    Mr. Wilson, 29, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wilson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from Illinois.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the Notice.
    FMCSA notes that Section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-
LU) requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program
established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must
provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus,
and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 Notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 Notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) The elimination of the requirement for
three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with
insulin; and (2) the establishment of a specified minimum period of
insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being
allowed to operate a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 Notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 USC. 31136(e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary. FMCSA concluded that all of the
operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September
3, 2003 Notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section
4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3,
2003 Notice, except as modified by the Notice in the Federal Register
on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: September 14, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-22770 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]