[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69690-69692]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28647]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0082; FRL-9325-1]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, 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
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility'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 Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID number and the
pesticide petition number of interest as shown in the body of this
document. 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
email. The regulations.gov Web site 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 email
comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your
email 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
available at http://www.regulations.gov. 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 Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., 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 Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A contact person, with telephone
number and email address, is listed at the end of each pesticide
petition summary. You may also reach each contact person by mail at
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition
summary of interest.

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 email. 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.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking
public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners.
EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has
determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document
contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2);
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to
evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may
be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide
petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
New Tolerances
    1. PP 1E7908. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0759). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the insecticide buprofezin, in or on bean, succulent at
0.02 parts per million (ppm); Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 55
ppm; turnip, greens at 55 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 3.0
ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 2.5 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at
4.0 ppm; persimmon at 1.9 ppm; and tea at 20 ppm. This summary has been
prepared by Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Road, Suite
501, Wilmington, DE 91808, the registrant. The proposed analytical
method involves extraction, partition, clean-up and detection of
residues by gas chromatography using nitrogen phosphorous detection
(GC/NPD). Contact: Andrew Ertman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 1E7919. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0792). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the insecticide acetamiprid, N 1-[(6-chloro-3-
pyridyl)methyl]- N 2-cyano- N 1-methylacetamidine, in or on asparagus
at 0.8 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 15 ppm; turnip
greens at 15 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at
0.01 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 10 ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 30 ppm;
vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.20 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10
at 0.50 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 1.0 ppm; and Brassica, head
and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.20 ppm. Based upon the metabolism of
acetamiprid in plants and the toxicology of the parent and metabolites,
quantification of the parent acetamiprid is sufficient to determine
toxic residues. As a result a method was developed that involves
extraction of acetamiprid from crop matrices with a solvent followed by
a decantation and filtration and finally analysis by a liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method.
Contact: Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP 1E7911. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0780). Summit Agro North America
Holding Corporation, 600 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10016-2001, c/o
Landis International, Inc., P.O. Box 5126, Valdosta, GA 31603-5126,
requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide triforine, piperazine-1,4-diylbis(2,2,2-trichloroethane-1,1-
diyl)diformamide in or on blueberry at 0.02 ppm; and tomato at 0.5 ppm.
Adequate analytical enforcement methods are available to enforce the
proposed tolerances. Triforine was extracted from blueberries, tomato
and tomato paste with acetone. The final samples were analyzed by LC/
MS/MS for quantitation of triforine. Contact: Heather Garvie, (703)
308-0034, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. PP 1F7891. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0717). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, requests to establish
a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
azoxystrobin, (methyl (E)-2-[2-[6-(2-yanophenoxy) pyrimidin-4-
yloxy]phenyl]-3-methoxyacrylate) and the Z-isomer of azoxystrobin,
(methyl (Z)-2-[2-[6-(2- cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]pheny1]-3-
methoxyacrylate), in or on sugarcane at 0.2 ppm. An adequate analytical
method, GC/NPD or in mobile phase by high performance liquid
chromatography with ultra-violet detection (HPLC/UV), is available for
enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that allows monitoring
of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances.
Contact: Shaunta Hill,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. PP 1F7892. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0772). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, requests to establish
a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
propiconazole, 1H-1,2,4-Triazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-
1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-, and its metabolites determined as 2,4-
dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as parent compound, in or on
sugarcane at 1.0 ppm. Analytical methods adequate to determine parent
propiconazole, total propiconazole as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid, and the
triazole metabolites (1,2,4-Triazole, Triazole Alanine, and Triazole
Acetic Acid) are available for enforcement purposes with limits of
detection that allow monitoring of food with residues at or above the
levels set

in this tolerance. Contact: Erin Malone,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. PP 1F7905. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0759). Nichino America, Inc., 4550
New Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 91808, requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
insecticide buprofezin, in or on nut, tree group 14 (including
pistachios) at 0.05 ppm. The proposed analytical method involves
extraction, partition, clean-up and detection of residues by LC/MS/MS.
Contact: Samantha Hulkower,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Amended Tolerances
    1. PP 1E7908. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0759). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to remove the existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.511
for residues of the insecticide buprofezin, in or on non-bell pepper;
fruiting vegetable group 8, except non-bell pepper; fruit, citrus,
group 10; and fruit, pome, group 11 which will now be covered by the
newly requested tolerances under ``New Tolerances''. This summary has
been prepared by Nichino America, Inc., Wilmington, DE 19808, the
registrant. Contact: Andrew Ertman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 1E7919. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0792). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests upon approval of the aforementioned tolerances under
``New Tolerances'', to remove the established tolerances in 40 CFR
180.578 for residues of the insecticide acetamiprid, N 1-[(6-chloro-3-
pyridyl)methyl]- N 2-cyano- N 1-methylacetamidine, in or on fruit,
citrus, group 10 at 0.50 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 1.0 ppm;
vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.20 ppm; and vegetable, Brassica,
leafy, group 5 at 1.20 ppm. The fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit, pome,
group 11; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8 tolerances will be
superseded by the updated crop group tolerances. The vegetable,
Brassica, leafy group 5 tolerance will be superseded by the Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 5B and Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A
tolerances. Contact: Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>New Tolerance Exemption
    PP 1E7918. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0829). United Phosphorus, Inc., 630
Freedom Business Center, Suite 402, King of Prussia, PA 19406, requests
to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR
180.1195 for residues of titanium dioxide (CAS No. 13463-67-7) in or on
growing crops when used as a pesticide inert ingredient ultraviolet
(UV) protectant in herbicide formulations at no more than 5 percent by
weight of the formulation. The petition proposes to establish
exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance and no analytical method
is generally required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.
Contact: David Lieu,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: October 18, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-28647 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 533-536]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33786]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0367]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
requirement; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from seventeen
individuals for exemption 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 CMVs in interstate
commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0367 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-(202) 493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (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 DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<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
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The seventeen individuals
listed in this notice have recently requested such 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

Randall T. Buffkin

    Mr. Buffkin, age 50, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Buffkin understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Buffkin meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from North
Carolina.

Gary L. Camden

    Mr. Camden, 58, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Camden understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Camden meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Indiana.

Loren A. Cox

    Mr. Cox, 53, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe 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 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cox understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cox meets the vision requirements of
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
A CDL from New York.

Dennis D. Dingman

    Mr. Dingman, 63, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dingman understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dingman meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class R operator's license from Colorado.

Daryl F. Gilbertson

    Mr. Gilbertson, 34, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gilbertson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gilbertson meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Wisconsin.

Alfred Gutierrez, II

    Mr. Gutierrez, 36, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gutierrez understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gutierrez meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Oklahoma.

Matthew D. Hulse

    Mr. Hulse, 42, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hulse understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hulse meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Kansas.

Jeremy L. Igert

    Mr. Igert, 35, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Igert understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Igert meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Missouri.

Neil E. Karvonen

    Mr. Karvonen, 24, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the

last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Karvonen
understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Karvonen meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

Damon A. Kruger

    Mr. Kruger, 32, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kruger understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kruger meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Colorado.

Bryan R. Lee

    Mr. Lee, 39, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe 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 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lee understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lee meets the vision requirements of
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an
operator's license from Michigan.

Earl T. Morton

    Mr. Morton, 58, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Morton understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Morton meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2011 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.

Richard A. Norstebon

    Mr. Norstebon, 54, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Norstebon understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Norstebon meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from North
Dakota.

Donald J. Olbinski

    Mr. Olbinski, 58, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Olbinski understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Olbinski meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.

Kevin E. Risley

    Mr. Risley, 50, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Risley understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Risley meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Indiana.

Steven L. Schmenk

    Mr. Schmenk, 54, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schmenk understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schmenk meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.

Benny L. Westbrooks

    Mr. Westbrooks, 60, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
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 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Westbrooks understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Westbrooks meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His opthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.

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 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) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) 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 U.S.C. 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.
    The 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: December 22, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-33786 Filed 1-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47829-47831]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19508]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 153 / Monday, August 10, 2015 / Rules
and Regulations

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 241

[Release No. 34-75592]

Interpretation of the SEC's Whistleblower Rules Under Section 21F
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Interpretation.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission or SEC) is
issuing this interpretive rule to clarify that, for purposes of the
employment retaliation protections provided by Section 21F of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), an individual's
status as a whistleblower does not depend on adherence to the reporting
procedures specified in Exchange Act Rule 21F-9(a), but is determined
solely by the terms of Exchange Act Rule 21F-2(b)(1).

DATES: Effective August 10, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Norberg, Deputy Chief of the
Office of the Whistleblower, Division of Enforcement, at (202) 551-
4790; Brian A. Ochs, Senior Special Counsel, Office of the General
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 12 4 Stat. 1376, 1841-49 (2010),
Congress amended the Exchange Act to add Section 21F, 15 U.S.C. 78u-
6(h)(1), entitled ``Securities Whistleblower Incentives and
Protection.'' Section 21F established a series of new incentives and
protections for individuals to report possible violations of the
federal securities laws. Generally speaking, these incentives and
protections take three forms--monetary awards for providing
information, heightened confidentiality assurances, and enhanced
employment retaliation protections.
    In May 2011, the Commission issued legislative rules
(``whistleblower rules'') after notice-and-comment rulemaking to
implement the provisions of Section 21F. The Commission is now issuing
this interpretive rule to clarify the meaning and application of
certain of those rules. As explained below, an individual may qualify
as a whistleblower for purposes of Section 21F's employment retaliation
protections irrespective of whether he or she has adhered to the
reporting procedures specified in Rule 21F-9(a). Rule 21F-2(b)(1) alone
governs the procedures that an individual must follow to qualify as a
whistleblower eligible for Section 21F's employment retaliation
protections.

II. Interpretation

    When we promulgated our legislative rules to implement the
whistleblower program, we recognized that Section 21F is ambiguous on
the issue of the scope of the employment retaliation protections
afforded thereunder. On the one hand, Section 21F(h)(1)(A) includes a
broad catchall provision that prohibits an employer from, among other
things, retaliating against a whistleblower for ``making disclosures
that are required or protected under'' the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the Exchange Act, 18 U.S.C. 1513(e), ``and any other law, rule, or
regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.'' \1\ As the
Commission explained in the adopting release that accompanied the
whistleblower rules, the reporting covered by this provision includes
``report[s] to persons or governmental authorities other than the
Commission.'' \2\ But on the other hand, the employment retaliation
protections afforded to whistleblowers under Section 21F could be read
as limited to only those individuals who provide the Commission with
information; this is because under Section 21F(a)(6) the ``term
`whistleblower' means any individual who provides . . . information
relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission, in a
manner established, by rule or regulation, by the Commission.''
(Emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 21F(h)(1)(A) provides as follows: ``(A) In General.
No employer may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass,
directly or indirectly, or in any other manner discriminate against,
a whistleblower in the terms and conditions of employment because of
any lawful act done by the whistleblower--(i) in providing
information to the Commission in accordance with this section; (ii)
in initiating, testifying in, or assisting in any investigation or
judicial or administrative action of the Commission based upon or
related to such information; or (iii) in making disclosures that are
required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.), this chapter [i.e., the Exchange Act],
including section 78j-1(m) of this title [i.e., Section 10A(m) of
the Exchange Act], section 1513(e) of Title 18, and any other law,
rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.''
     Clause (iii), which is a catchall provision, provides
employment retaliation protection for certain internal reporting at
public companies and for certain disclosures to the U.S. Department
of Justice by expressly incorporating the ``disclosures that are
required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,'' which includes
Sarbanes-Oxley Section 806. Section 806, in turn, prohibits
employment retaliation against an employee of a public company (or a
subsidiary thereof) based on certain disclosures of securities law
violations to ``a person with supervisory authority over the
employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the
authority to investigate, discovery, or terminate misconduct)'' or
to a ``Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency.'' 15 U.S.C.
1514A(1).
    \2\ Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protections, 76 FR
34300, 34304 (June 13, 2011) (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To resolve this ambiguity, the Commission in Rule 21F-2 promulgated
two separate definitions of ``whistleblower.'' These two definitions
apply in different circumstances and each involves its own specified
reporting procedures that must be satisfied in order for an individual
to qualify under the particular definition. The first definition, which
is set forth in Rule 21F-2(a), mirrors the statutory definition of
whistleblower. It provides in pertinent part that an individual is ``a
whistleblower if, alone or jointly with others, [the individual]
provide[s] the Commission with information pursuant to the procedures
set forth in [Rule] 21F-9(a).'' This definition of whistleblower
applies only to the award and confidentiality provisions of Section
21F.
    The second whistleblower definition, which is set forth in Rule
21F-2(b)(1), provides in pertinent part that, ``[f]or purposes of the
anti-retaliation protections afforded by Section 21F(h)(1) of the
Exchange Act . . . , [an

individual is] a whistleblower if . . . [the individual] provide[d]
that information in a manner described in Section 21F(h)(1)(A) of the
Exchange Act[.]'' Rule 21F-2(b)(1)(ii). This definition--unlike the
whistleblower definition in Rule 21F-2(a) that applies to the award and
confidentiality provisions--does not require reporting in accordance
with Rule 21F-9(a)'s procedures.
    We also adopted Rule 21F-9(a) to specify the reporting procedures
that must be followed by an individual who seeks to qualify as a
whistleblower under Rule 21F-2(a) and thus to be eligible for an award
and the heightened confidentiality protections. Rule 21F-9(a) provides
in pertinent part that, ``[t]o be considered a whistleblower under
Section 21F . . . , [an individual] must submit [his or her]
information . . . by either of these methods: (1) Online, through the
Commission's Web site . . . ; or (2) By mailing or faxing a Form TCR .
. . to the SEC Office of the Whistleblower . . . .''
    Since our adoption of the whistleblower rules, we have consistently
understood Rule 21F-9(a) as a procedural rule that applies only to help
determine an individual's status as a whistleblower for purposes of
Section 21F's award and confidentiality provisions.\3\ Similarly, it
has been our consistent view that Rule 21F-2(b)(1) alone controls the
reporting methods that will qualify an individual as a whistleblower
for the retaliation protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See generally SEC Staff Report, 2014 Annual Report to
Congress on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program, 19 (available at:
http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/annual-report-2014.pdf)
(explaining that from the time it promulgated the whistleblower
rules, the Commission has taken the view that the employment
retaliation protections ``apply not just to individuals who report
to the SEC but also to individuals when they, among other things,
report potential securities law violations internally at public
companies''; also explaining that the Commission has
``consistently'' opposed the contrary interpretation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding our view that Rule 21F-2(b)(1) alone controls in
the context of determining the relevant reporting procedures for an
individual to qualify as a whistleblower eligible for Section 21F's
employment retaliation protections, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit expressed some uncertainty about this reading in a recent
decision.\4\ Although we appreciate that if read in isolation Rule 21F-
9(a) could be construed to require that an individual must report to
the Commission before he or she will qualify as a whistleblower
eligible for the employment retaliation protections provided by Section
21F, that construction is not consistent with Rule 21F-2 and would
undermine our overall goals in implementing the whistleblower program.
We reach this conclusion for several reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Asadi v. G.E. Energy (U.S.A.), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620, 630
(5th Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, as the text of Rule 21F-2(b)(1) states, ``for purposes of
Section 21F's employment retaliation protections,'' an individual
qualifies as a whistleblower entitled to the employment retaliation
protection whenever he or she makes any of the broader array of
disclosures specified in Section 21F(h)(1)(A).\5\ The fact that Rule
21F-2(b)(1) expressly and specifically applies in the employment
retaliation context demonstrates that it should control over Rule 21F-
9(a).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In contrast, Rule 21F-2(a)(2) states that ``[t]o be eligible
for an award,'' an individual must submit original information ``to
the Commission in accordance with the procedures and conditions
described in Rules 21F-4, 21F-8, and 21F-9.'' (Emphasis added). In
addition, Rule 21F-2(a)(1) specifically cross-references the
procedures set forth in Rule 21F-9(a), whereas Rule 21F-2(b)(1) does
not contain a similar cross-reference.
    \6\ See, e.g., In re Gulevsky, 362 F.3d 961, 963 (7th Cir. 2004)
(``[W]hen both a specific and a general provision govern a
situation, the specific one controls.'') (quoting Morales v. Trans
World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384-85, 112 S.Ct. 2031, 119
L.Ed.2d 157 (1992)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Rule 21F-2(b)(1)(iii) expressly provides that ``[t]he anti-
retaliation protections apply whether or not [an individual]
satisf[ies] the requirements, procedures and conditions to qualify for
an award.'' As Rule 21F-2(a)(2) makes plain, the reporting procedures
specified in Rule 21F-9(a) are among the procedures that an individual
must follow to recover an award. The contrast between these provisions
further supports our interpretation that the availability of employment
retaliation protection is not conditioned on an individual's adherence
to the Rule 21F-9(a) procedures.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We note that, other than Rule 21F-2(b), all of the other
rules that the Commission adopted to implement the whistleblower
program deal exclusively with the award and confidentiality
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, our interpretation best comports with our overall goals in
implementing the whistleblower program. Specifically, by providing
employment retaliation protections for individuals who report
internally first to a supervisor, compliance official, or other person
working for the company that has authority to investigate, discover, or
terminate misconduct, our interpretive rule avoids a two-tiered
structure of employment retaliation protection that might discourage
some individuals from first reporting internally in appropriate
circumstances and, thus, jeopardize the investor-protection and law-
enforcement benefits that can result from internal reporting.\8\ Under
our interpretation, an individual who reports internally and suffers
employment retaliation will be no less protected than an individual who
comes immediately to the Commission. Providing equivalent employment
retaliation protection for both situations removes a potentially
serious disincentive to internal reporting by employees in appropriate
circumstances. A contrary interpretation would undermine the other
incentives that were put in place through the Commission's
whistleblower rules in order to encourage internal reporting.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We note that a contrary interpretation would also create a
two-tiered scheme of employment retaliation protection even as
between individuals who report possible securities fraud violations
or violations of SEC rules or regulations to the Commission;
specifically, if an individual comes forward to report information
to the Commission in a manner other than those specified in Rule
21F-9(a), that individual would not qualify for the employment
retaliation protections of Section 21F. See Section 21F(h)(1)(A)(i)
& (ii). But under our reading of Section 21F and the whistleblower
rules, such individuals would be afforded employment retaliation
protection under the catchall language of Section
21F(h)(1)(A)(iii)--which incorporates the protections of Section 806
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act--irrespective of the fact that they did
not comply with the technical reporting requirements of Rule 21F-
9(a).
    \9\ See, e.g., Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c)(3) (providing that an
individual who reports internally can collect a whistleblower award
from the Commission if his internal report to the company or entity
results in a successful covered action); Exchange Act Rule 21F-
4(b)(7) (providing that an individual who first reports pursuant to
an entity's internal whistleblower, legal, or compliance procedures
for reporting allegations of possible violations of law and within
120 days reports to the Commission will be treated for purposes of
an award as if the submission to the Commission had been made at the
earlier internal reporting date); Exchange Act Rule 21F-6(a)(4)
(providing that when determining the amount of an award, the
Commission will consider as a plus-factor the whistleblower's
participation in an entity's internal compliance procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, we are issuing this interpretation to
clarify that, for purposes of Section 21F's employment retaliation
protections, an individual's status as a whistleblower does not depend
on adherence to the reporting procedures specified in Rule 21F-9(a).

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 241

    Securities.

Amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations

    For the reasons set out above, the Commission is amending title 17,
chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 241--INTERPRETATIVE RELEASES RELATING TO THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER

0
1. Part 241 is amended by adding Release No. 34-75592 to the list of
interpretive releases to read as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal Register  Vol.
               Subject                    Release No.                 Date                       and page
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Interpretation of the SEC's                    34-75592  Aug. 4, 2015..................  [Insert FR Volume
 Whistleblower Rules under Section                                                        Number] FR [Insert FR
 21F of the Securities Exchange Act                                                       Page Number].
 of 1934.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By the Commission.

    Dated: August 4, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19508 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11829-11830]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4720]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63960; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Require
Public Disclosure of Any Access or Post-Transaction Fees for Executions
Against a Public Quotation in an OTC Equity Security

February 24, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on February 18, 2011, the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
FINRA. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to require members to disclose on the member's
Web site fees imposed against its published quotation in any OTC Equity
Security consistent with FINRA Rule 6450 (Restrictions on Access Fees).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA, 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, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On June 22, 2010, the SEC approved, among other rules, new FINRA
Rule 6450 (Restrictions on Access Fees).\3\ Rule 6450 provides that a
firm may not impose, nor permit to be imposed, non-subscriber access or
post-transaction fees against its published quotation in any OTC Equity
Security that exceed or accumulate to more than:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62359, 75 FR 37488
(June 29, 2010) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2009-054).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $0.003 per share, if the published quotation is priced
equal to or greater than $1.00; or
     The lesser of (a) 0.3% of the published quotation price on
a per share basis or (b) 30% of the minimum pricing increment under
Rule 6434 relevant to the display of the quotation on a per share basis
if the published quotation is less than $1.00.
    FINRA is filing the proposed rule change to add Supplementary
Material .01 (the ``disclosure rule'') to provide that a member must
disclose on its Web site, in a clear and conspicuous manner, fees (and
changes to fees) imposed against its published quotations as provided
for in Rule 6450 at least three (3) business days in advance.\4\ Where
a member makes multiple fee schedules available, the applicability of
each schedule must be clear (e.g., volume discount tiers and rates).
Members must maintain and preserve records of the fee schedules
required to be made available pursuant to this disclosure rule for the
period of time and accessibility specified in SEA Rule 17a-4(b) under
the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of the first three business days of the
disclosure rule's operation, members would be in compliance with the
advance notice requirement if they have posted the fees prior to 9
a.m. on the trading day upon which they impose the fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has requested that the Commission approve the proposed rule
change on an accelerated basis, so that it may become effective as soon
as possible. The effective date of the proposed rule change will be two
weeks after Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act,\5\ which requires,
among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest. FINRA believes the proposed rule change will
provide transparency to members as to the level of non-subscriber
access or post-transaction fees imposed against published quotations in
OTC Equity Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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 such 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2011-008 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-FINRA-2011-008. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA.
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-FINRA-2011-008
and should be submitted on or before March 24, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4720 Filed 3-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 55382-55383]
[DOCID:fr10se10-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62833; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-82]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending the Pilot
Period To Receive Inbound Routes of Equities Orders From Archipelago
Securities LLC

September 2, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on August 31, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period of the Exchange's
prior approvals to receive inbound routes of equities orders from
Archipelago Securities LLC (``Arca Securities''), an NYSE Arca
affiliated ETP Holder. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those 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
    Currently, Arca Securities is the approved outbound order routing
facility of the Exchange.\3\ Arca Securities is also the approved
outbound order routing facility of the New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE'') and NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'').\4\ The Exchange, through
NYSE Arca Equities, has also been previously approved to receive
inbound routes of equities orders by Arca Securities in its capacity as
an order routing facility of the NYSE and NYSE Amex.\5\ The Exchange's
authority to receive inbound routes of equities orders by Arca
Securities is subject to a pilot period ending September 30, 2010.\6\
The Exchange hereby seeks to extend the previously approved pilot
period (with the attendant obligations and conditions) for an
additional 6 months, through March 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54238 (July 28,
2006), 71 FR 44758 (August 7, 2006) (order approving SR-NYSEArca-
2006-13); see also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497
(September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56949 (September 29, 2005)(SR-PCX-2005-
90); see also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (October
25, 2001), 66 FR 55225 (November 1, 2001) (SR-PCX-00-25); see also,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58681 (September 29, 2008), 73
FR 58285 (October 6, 2008) (order approving SR-NYSEArca-2008-90).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55590 (April 5,
2007), 72 FR 18707 (April 13, 2007) (notice of immediate
effectiveness of SR-NYSE-2007-29); see also, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 58680 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 58283 (October 6,
2008) (order approving SR-NYSE-2008-76). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59009 (November 24, 2008), 73 FR 73363 (December 2,
2008) (order approving SR-NYSEALTR-2008-07); see also, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59473 (February 27, 2009) 74 FR 9853 (March
6, 2009) (order approving SR-NYSEALTR-2009-18).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58681 (September 29,
2008), 73 FR 58285 (October 6, 2008) (order approving NYSEArca-2008-
90); see also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59010 (November
24, 2008), 73 FR 73373 (December 2, 2008) (order approving SR-
NYSEArca-2008-130).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61813 (March 31,
2010), 75 FR 17459 (April 6, 2010) (Notice of immediate
effectiveness of SR-NYSEArca-2010-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \7\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \8\ in particular in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster

cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
Specifically, the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to
continue receiving inbound routes of equities orders from Arca
Securities acting in its capacity as a facility of the NYSE and NYSE
Amex, in a manner consistent with prior approvals and established
protections. The Exchange believes that extending the previously
approved pilot period for six months will permit both the Exchange and
the Commission to further assess the impact of the Exchange's authority
to receive direct inbound routes of equities orders via Arca Securities
(including the attendant obligations and conditions).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ The Exchange is currently analyzing the condition regarding
non-public information and system changes in order to better reflect
the operation of Arca Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-82 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-NYSEArca-2010-82. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-82 and should be submitted on or before
October 1, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22562 Filed 9-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/21/14

FROM: 		Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO:CLEAN POWER PLAN FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS; DOCKET ID: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:DISCUSSION OF THE CLEAN POWER Plan with EPA Region 4 State and Local Energy and Environmental Agencies

SUMMARY:

EPA Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to EPA Region 4 State and Local  Energy and Environmental Agencies on 7/14/14 (West Virginia officials also participated).  The Clean  Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA Beverly Banister/EPA R4 Keith Goff/EPA R4 Other EPA R4 staff Joe Goffman/OAR HQ Other EPA OAR HQ staff

External Stakeholders Approximately 28 State and Local Energy and Environmental Agency staff

ATTACHMENT

Advance Questions for Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with EPA Region 4 State, Local, and  Tribal Energy and Environmental Agencies on 7/14/14

1. Dispatch is currently set by complex economic algorithms developed by the utilities. What regulatory mechanism does EPA anticipate states using to require utilities to switch to an environmental dispatch?

2. Does EPA have a planned approach for dealing with a major disruption in the energy markets? Same question for an unexpected shutdown of a nuclear plant?

3. Why is Georgia being asked to reduce emissions by 48%, when other states's reduction targets are significantly smaller (e.g. less than 20%)?