[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66010-66013]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26345]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73483; File No. SR-OCC-2014-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Better Manage Risks
Concentration and Other Risks Associated With Accepting Deposits of
Common Stocks for Margin Purposes

October 31, 2014.
    On July 15, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change SR-OCC-2014-14
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 5, 2014.\3\ The
Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed rule change.
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72717 (July 30, 2014),
79 FR 45523 (August 5, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-14). OCC also filed
proposals contained in this proposed rule change as an advance
notice under Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and
Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Payment, Clearing and
Settlement Supervision Act'') and Rule 19b-4(n)(1) of the Act, which
was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 15,
2014. 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1); 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 72803 (August 11, 2014), 79 FR 48285
(August 15, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-803). The Commission did not receive
any comments on the advance notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description

    According to OCC, the purpose of this proposed rule change is to
permit OCC to better manage concentration risk and wrong-way risk
associated with accepting deposits of common stock for margin purposes.
In order to manage such risks, OCC proposed to add an Interpretation
and Policy to Rule 604, which specifies the forms of margin assets
accepted by OCC, that will provide OCC with discretion with respect to
giving value to assets deposited by a single clearing member to satisfy
its margin requirement(s). In addition, OCC proposed to make clarifying
amendments to an existing Interpretation and Policy under Rule 604 that
gives OCC discretion to not give value to a particular type of margin
collateral across all clearing members.

a. Background

    OCC Rule 604 lists the types of assets that clearing members may
deposit with OCC to satisfy their margin requirement(s) as well as sets
forth eligibility criteria for such assets. According to OCC, common
stocks, including Exchange Traded Funds (``ETFs'') and Exchange Traded
Notes (``ETNs''), are the most common form of margin assets deposited
by clearing members and currently comprise 68% of the $60.6 billion in
clearing member margin deposits held by OCC (not including deposits in
lieu of margin). According to OCC, since 2009, OCC has used its System
for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (``STANS''), which
is OCC's daily automated Monte Carlo simulation-based margining
methodology, to value common stocks deposited by clearing members as
margin.\4\ The value given to margin deposits depends on factors that
include the price volatility and the price correlation relationship of
common stock collateral to the balance of the cleared portfolio. The
approach used by STANS incentivizes clearing members who chose to meet
their margin obligations with deposits of common stocks to choose
common stocks that hedge their related open positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58158 (July 15,
2008), 73 FR 42646 (July 22, 2008) (SR-OCC-2007-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to OCC, notwithstanding the value STANS gives to deposits
of common stocks, certain factors warrant OCC adjusting the value STANS
gives to all clearing member margin deposits of a particular type of
margin collateral. Such factors are set forth in Rule 604,
Interpretation and Policy .14, and include the number of outstanding
shares, number of outstanding shareholders and overall trading volume.
OCC is proposing to add a new Interpretation and Policy to Rule 604
(the ``Interpretation'') so that OCC has discretion to not give margin
credit to a particular clearing member when such clearing member
deposits a concentrated amount of any common stock and when a common
stock, deposited as margin, presents ``wrong-way risk'' to OCC. In
addition, the Interpretation will provide OCC discretion to grant
margin credit to a clearing member when it deposits shares of common
stock that serve as a hedge to the clearing member's related open
positions and would otherwise be not be given margin credit.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ According to OCC, consistent with the language contained in
existing Interpretation & Policy .14, the Interpretation provides
OCC with discretion in determining the amount of margin credit given
to deposits of common stock by an individual clearing member as such
determination would be based on positions held and common stock
deposits made by such clearing member on a given business day.
However, as discussed in the following two sections, OCC also has
developed certain automated processes as well as additional internal
policies that describe how OCC presently intends to exercise such
discretion. According to OCC, these additional internal policies are
included in OCC's collateral risk management policy, which will not
be implemented until approval of this rule change with changes
thereto being subject to additional rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Concentrated Deposits of Common Stock

    OCC has determined that in the event it is necessary to liquidate a
clearing member's positions (including the clearing member's margin
collateral), OCC may be exposed to risk arising from a large quantity
of a particular common stock deposited as margin by a clearing member.
Specifically, depending on the relationship between the average daily
trading volume of a particular security and the number of outstanding
shares of such security deposited by a clearing member as margin, it is
possible that the listed equities markets may not be able to quickly
absorb all of the common stock OCC seeks to sell, or OCC may not be
able to auction such securities, without an appreciable negative price
impact. This occurrence, referred to by OCC as ``concentration risk,''
is greatest when the number of shares being sold is large and the
average daily trading volume is low.
    OCC's existing authority to not give value to otherwise eligible
forms of margin only provides OCC with the discretion to not give value
across all clearing member deposits of a particular common stock.
However, concentration risk may be a clearing member and account-
specific risk. In order to mitigate the concentration risk of a single
clearing member, OCC plans to implement automated processes to monitor
the composition of a clearing member's margin deposits. Such processes
will identify concentration risk at both an account level and across
all accounts of a clearing member. OCC proposed to add the
Interpretation so that OCC has discretion to limit the margin credit
granted to an individual clearing member that maintains a concentrated
margin deposit of otherwise eligible common stock.
    According to OCC, for the reasons stated above, OCC considers a
common stock's average daily trading volume and the number of shares a
clearing member deposited as margin to be the two most significant
factors when making a decision to limit margin credit due to
concentration risk. Accordingly, OCC will not give margin credit to
clearing member margin deposits of a particular common stock in respect
of a particular account when the deposited amount of such common stock
is in excess of two times the average daily trade volume of such common
stock over the most recent three month period. OCC's systems will
continually assess the composition of clearing member margin deposits
for each account maintained by the clearing member, including intra-day
collateral substitutions in such accounts, to determine if a clearing
member has a margin deposit with a concentrated amount of common stock.
With respect to a given account, OCC's systems will automatically set
appropriate limits on the amount of a particular common stock for which
a clearing member may be given margin credit for any one of its

tier accounts. In addition, and with respect to all of a clearing
member's accounts, OCC will impose an add-on margin charge if, in
aggregate, a clearing member deposits a concentrated amount of a
particular common stock as margin across all of its accounts. The add-
on margin charge will operate to negate the margin credit given to the
concentrated margin deposit, and will be collected, when applicable, as
part of OCC's standard morning margin process. OCC will assess the add-
on margin charge across all of a clearing member's accounts on a pro-
rata basis (based on the amount of the particular common stock in each
of a clearing member's accounts).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ According to OCC, since a 2-day limit is first checked at
each account, it is possible that a clearing member with multiple
accounts may have more than 2-days of a given common stock on
deposit in aggregate. To control this condition, a final check is
done on the aggregate amount of shares held by a clearing member
across all of its accounts. For example, if a particular clearing
member has three accounts each holding 2-days volume of a specific
common stock, the clearing member check would identify that the
member was holding six days of volume in aggregate. To mitigate this
risk, an add-on charge equal to the market value of four days of
volume would be applied to all accounts holding that security on a
pro-rata basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to OCC, OCC staff has been monitoring concentrated common
stock positions, assessing the impact of the proposed rule change
described in this filing and contacting clearing members affected by
the proposed rule change. OCC believes that clearing members will be
able to comply with the proposed rule change without making significant
changes to their day-to-day business operations. In December 2013, an
information memo was posted to inform all members of the upcoming
change. According to OCC, since January 2014, OCC staff has been in
contact with any clearing member that would be affected by the proposed
rule change. On a weekly basis, any clearing member that would see a
reduction of 10% or more of its collateral value is contacted and
provided an explanation of the policy and a list of concentrated
positions observed in this analysis. On a monthly basis, all clearing
members exhibiting any concentration risk are contacted to provide an
explanation of the proposed policy and a list of concentrated
positions. In both cases, clearing members are encouraged to
proactively reduce concentrated positions to conform to the proposed
policy. As of June 2014, twenty-five members would be affected.
Implementation of the Interpretation would result in disallowing $1.2
billion in collateral value and result in margin calls for six members
totaling $710 million. Moreover, in July 2014, OCC made an automated
report concerning concentrated margin deposits of common stock
available to all clearing members.

c. Wrong-Way Risk

    OCC also proposed to use the Interpretation to address the risk
that the common stock a clearing member has deposited as margin and
which is issued by the clearing member itself or an affiliate of the
clearing member will lose value in the event the clearing member
providing such margin defaults, which is known as ``wrong-way risk.''
According to OCC, wrong-way risk occurs when a clearing member makes a
deposit of common stock issued by it or an affiliate and, in the event
the clearing member defaults, the clearing member's common stock margin
deposit will also be losing value at the same time because there is
likely to be a strong correlation between the clearing member's
creditworthiness and the value of such common stock. In order to
address wrong-way risk, the Interpretation will implement automated
systems that will not give margin credit to a clearing member that
deposits common stock issued by such clearing member or an affiliate as
margin collateral. OCC proposed to define ``affiliate'' broadly in the
Interpretation to include any entity with direct or indirect equity
ownership of 10% of the clearing member, or any entity for which the
clearing member holds 10% of the direct or indirect equity
ownership.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This standard is based on the provisions of OCC Rule
215(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC has addressed the impact of the change designed to address
wrong-way risk. As of June 2014, there were 73 clearing members whose
parent or an affiliate has issued securities trading on U.S. exchanges.
As of June 2014, there are six clearing members that would be affected
by virtue of having made margin deposits of their own or an affiliate's
common stock. In total, these shares equaled $132 million and accounted
for less than one half of one percent of the total market value of
valued securities pledged as margin at OCC. In July 2014, OCC made
information available to each clearing member that indicates which of
its deposits of common stock would not receive margin credit under the
proposed change due to wrong-way risk considerations, as described
above.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OCC believes that by providing such information clearing
members will be better able to adjust their margin deposits at OCC
to conform to the proposed rule change if it is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Deposits That Hedge Open Positions

    In addition to the above, OCC also proposed to include language in
the Interpretation so that it has discretion to give margin credit to
common stock deposited as margin that would otherwise not be given
margin credit in circumstances when such common stock acts as a hedge
(i.e., the member holds an equivalent short position in cleared
contracts on the same underlying security). This condition will be
checked in both the account and clearing member level. For example, if
a clearing member deposits the common stock of an affiliate as margin
collateral, which, pursuant to the above, would ordinarily not be given
value for the purposes of granting margin credit, OCC may nevertheless
give value to such common stock for the purposes of granting margin
credit to the extent such common stock acts as a hedge against open
positions of the clearing member. In this case, a decline in the value
of the margin deposit would be wholly or partially offset by an
increase in the value in the open position. Moreover, in such a
situation, OCC will systematically limit the margin credit granted to
the lesser of a multiple of the daily trading volume or the ``delta
equivalent position'' \9\ for the particular common stock, taking into
account the hedging position.\10\ OCC believes that this policy will
further encourage clearing members to deposit margin collateral that
hedges their related open

positions and is in line with the valuation methods within STANS. This
policy will also facilitate OCC's management of its and its
participants' credit exposure as well as the liquidation of a clearing
member's portfolio should the need arise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ According to OCC, the ``delta equivalent position'' is the
equivalent number of underlying shares represented by the
aggregation of cleared products on that same underlying instrument.
This value is calculated using the ``delta'' of the option or
futures contract, which is the ratio between the theoretical change
in the price of the options or futures contract to the corresponding
change in the price of an underlying asset. Thus, delta measures the
sensitivity of an options or futures contract price to changes in
the price of the underlying asset. For example, a delta of +0.7
means that for every $1 increase in the price of the underlying
stock, the price of a call option will increase by $0.70. Delta for
an option or future can be expressed in shares of the underlying
asset. For example, a standard put option with a delta of-.45 would
have a delta of-45 shares, because the unit of trading is 100
shares.
    \10\ Assume, for example, an average daily trade volume of 250
shares, a threshold of 2 times the average daily trade volume, and a
delta of -300 shares for the options on a particular security in a
particular account. A position of 700 shares that did not hedge any
short options or futures would receive credit for only 500 shares
(i.e., 2 times the average daily trade volume). If the net long
position in the account, when combined with the delta of short
option and futures position, were only 400, credit would be given
for the entire 700 shares since the delta equivalent position is
below the 500 share threshold. However, if the option delta were
+300, the net long position would be 1000, and credit would only be
given for 500 shares because the delta equivalent position would
exceed the 500 share threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Other Proposed Changes

    OCC also proposed to make certain clarifying changes in order to
accommodate the adoption of the Interpretation into its Rules.
Primarily, OCC proposed to add language to OCC Rule 604, Interpretation
and Policy .14, to clarify that such Interpretation and Policy concerns
OCC's authority to not give value to certain margin deposits for all
clearing members (whereas the Interpretation applies to particular
clearing member(s)). In addition, OCC proposed to remove language from
OCC Rule 604, Interpretation and Policy .14, to improve readability as
well as to remove ``factors'' concerning number of shares and
affiliates since OCC's authority with respect to such factors will be
more clearly described in the Interpretation. Finally, OCC proposed to
renumber the Interpretations and Policies of Rule 604 in order to
accommodate the adoption of the Interpretation.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \11\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\12\ and Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) of the
Act.\13\ Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \14\ requires a registered
clearing agency to have rules that are designed to, among other things,
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds
which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which
it is responsible. OCC's proposed rule change is consistent with this
rule because by implementing margin collateral requirements that
address concentration risk and wrong-way risk, OCC's proposed rule
change is consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions and assuring the safeguarding
of securities and funds which are in OCC's custody or control or for
which OCC is responsible. The proposed changes are designed to reduce
the risk that clearing member margin assets would be insufficient
should OCC need to use such assets to close-out positions of a
defaulted clearing member. The changes are also designed to facilitate
OCC to timely meet its settlement obligations because the proposed
change will diminish the likelihood that a large percentage of the
value of a defaulting clearing member's margin assets would not be
available to OCC to cover losses in the event of a clearing member
default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC's proposed rule change is consistent with Rule17Ad-22(b)(2) of
the Act.\15\ Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) of the Act \16\ requires a registered
clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to, among
other things, establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin requirements
to limit its credit exposures to participants under normal market
conditions. This proposal is consistent with this rule because it is
reasonably designed to permit OCC to use margin requirements to limit
its credit exposures to clearing members under normal market conditions
in two ways. First, it is reasonably designed to limit OCC's credit
exposures to clearing members whose collateral portfolios could present
concentration risk. Specifically, it addresses concentration risk by
particular clearing member and by particular account by giving OCC
discretion to disapprove as margin collateral certain securities, based
on the number of shares deposited, by particular clearing member and by
particular account, while also considering deposits that hedge open
positions. It also clarifies that OCC's existing authority to not give
value to certain margin deposits applies to all clearing members, as
opposed to particular clearing members.\17\ Second, it is reasonably
designed to limit OCC's credit exposures to clearing members whose
collateral portfolios could present wrong-way risk. Specifically, it
addresses wrong-way risk presented by clearing members who deposit as
margin securities that are issued by the clearing member itself or by
an affiliate of the clearing member. It addresses this type of wrong-
way risk by giving OCC discretion to disapprove as margin collateral,
with respect to a particular clearing member, any security issued by
such clearing member or by an affiliate of such clearing member, while
also considering deposits that hedge open positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ See Rule 604, Interpretation and Policy .15 (providing OCC
discretion to disapprove as margin collateral securities that meet
certain factors, including trading volume, number of outstanding
shareholder, number of outstanding shares, volatility and
liquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) of the Act \18\ also requires a registered
clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to, among
other things, establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to use risk-based models
and parameters to set margin requirements. This proposal is consistent
with this rule because it permits OCC to use risk-based models and
parameters to set margin requirements in a way that takes into account
concentration risk and wrong-way risk, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and, in
particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \19\ and
the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\20\ that the proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2014-14) be, and it
hereby is, approved, as of the date of this order or the date of a
notice by the Commission noticing, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of
the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act,\21\ that the
Commission does not object to the proposal in OCC's advance notice (SR-
OCC-2014-803) and OCC is authorized to implement the proposal,
whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \21\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26345 Filed 11-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34417-34419]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-1005]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City,
NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that
governs the PATH Railroad Bridge across the Hackensack River at mile
3.0, and the Hack-Freight Bridge across the Hackensack River at mile
3.1, at Jersey City, New Jersey. The owners of the bridges, the Port
Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) and Conrail, requested a change to the
operation schedule for the PATH Railroad Bridge and the Conrail Hack-
Freight to allow it to be operated from a remote location. In addition,
we removed obsolete language and requirements from the existing
regulation that are now listed under other regulations. It is expected
that this change to the regulations will create efficiency in
drawbridge operations while continuing to meet the reasonable needs of
navigation.

DATES: This rule is effective July 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-1005. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type in the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District
Bridge Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On March 28, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation Hackensack River, at
Jersey City, New Jersey'' in the Federal Register (79 FR 17483). We
received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The PATH Railroad Bridge across the Hackensack River at mile 3.0,
has a vertical clearance of 40 feet at mean high water and 45 feet at
mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33
CFR 117.723.
    The Hack-Freight Bridge across the Hackensack River at mile 3.1,
has a vertical clearance of 11 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at
mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33
CFR 117.723.
    The waterway users are commercial operators.
    The owners of the bridges, Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation
(PATH) and Conrail, submitted requests to the Coast Guard to operate
the Conrail Hack-Freight Bridge from a remote location and to change
the drawbridge operation for the PATH Bridge.
    Under this final rule, Conrail shall operate its Hack-Freight
Bridge across the Hackensack River at mile 3.1, from a remote location,
the Conrail Leigh Valley Bridge Office, at all times when a draw tender
is not stationed at the bridge. A draw tender may be stationed at the
bridge at various times when it is deemed necessary for safety purposes
such as during times when bridge maintenance is being performed.
    Conrail operates several other bridges from its Leigh Valley Bridge
Office, the Conrail Bridge at mile 2.0, across the Rahway River and the
Arthur Kill Bridge at mile 11.6, across Arthur Kill.
    Under this final rule, the Coast Guard is also changing the
drawbridge operation regulations for the PATH Railroad Bridge.
    The owner of the PATH Railroad Bridge, the Port Authority Trans-
Hudson Corporation (PATH), asked the Coast Guard to change the
drawbridge operation schedule for its Path Railroad Bridge, to require
at least a two hour advance notice for bridge openings at all times.
    In addition, PATH requested that the PATH Railroad Bridge be
allowed to remain in the closed position during time periods when
commuter rail traffic is heaviest from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 4
p.m. to 8 p.m.
    PATH agreed to provide additional bridge openings during the
commuter closure periods for commercial vessels, from 6 a.m. to 7:20
a.m., 9:20 a.m. to 10 a.m., 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and from 6:50 p.m. to 8
p.m., upon a two hour advance notice, to help facilitate commercial
vessel traffic. Notice may be provided by calling the number posted at
the bridge.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking. As a result, no changes have been made to this
final rule.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. We believe that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action because the PATH Railroad Bridge provides
adequate clearance for commercial vessels in the closed position and
the commercial vessels will be able to get additional openings provided
advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
Additionally, the

Hack-Freight Bridge can be transited at all times but will be tended
remotely.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this
rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule will have no effect on small entities for the following
reason: The high vertical clearance of the PATH Railroad Bridge of 40
feet at mean high water should accommodate all present vessel traffic
except deep draft. Additionally, vessels may transit the bridge at all
other times with a two hour advance notice and can plan their trips
accordingly during any closure periods. As for the Hack-Freight Bridge,
vessels may transit the bridge at all times.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule, if the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
order 13211, Actions Concerns Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.723 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.723  Hackensack River.

    (a) The following requirements apply to all bridges across the
Hackensack River:
    (1) The owners of each bridge shall provide and keep in good
legible condition clearance gauges for each draw, with figures not less
than 18 inches high for bridges below the turning basin at mile 4.0,
and 12 inches high for bridges above mile 4.0. The

gauges shall be designed, installed and maintained according to the
provisions of Sec.  118.160 of this chapter.
    (2) Train and locomotives shall be controlled so that any delay in
opening the draw shall not exceed 10 minutes. However, if a train
moving toward the bridge has crossed the home signal for the bridge
before the signal requesting the opening of the bridge is given, the
train may continue across the bridge and must clear the bridge
interlocks before stopping or reversing.
    (3) New Jersey Transit Rail Operations' (NJTRO) roving crews shall
consist of two qualified operators on each shift, each having a vehicle
which is equipped with marine and railroad radios, a cellular
telephone, and emergency bridge repair and maintenance tools. This crew
shall be split with one drawtender stationed at Upper Hack and the
other drawtender at the NJTRO HX drawbridge. Adequate security measures
shall be provided to prevent vandalism to the bridge operating controls
and mechanisms to ensure prompt openings of NJTRO bridges.
    (4) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (j) of this
section, the draws shall open on signal.
    (b) The draw of the PATH Bridge, mile 3.0, at Jersey City, shall
open on signal provided at least a two-hour advance notice is provided
by calling the number posted at the bridge. The draw need not open for
the passage of vessel traffic Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays, from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
    Additional bridge openings shall be provided for commercial vessels
from 6 a.m. to 7:20 a.m.; 9:20 a.m. to 10 a.m.; 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and
from 6:50 p.m. to 8 p.m. provided at least a two-hour advance notice is
given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
    (c) The draw of the Hack-Freight Railroad Bridge at mile 3.1, shall
open on signal at all times, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of
this section. The bridge shall be operated from a remote location at
all times, except when it is tended locally. Sufficient closed circuit
television cameras, approved by the Coast Guard, shall be operated and
maintained at the bridge site to enable the remotely located bridge
tender to have full view of both river traffic and the bridge.
    (1) Radiotelephone Channel 13/16 VHF-FM shall be maintained and
utilized to facilitate communication in both remote and local control
locations. The bridge shall also be equipped with directional
microphones and horns to receive and deliver signals to vessels.
    (2) Whenever the remote control system equipment is partially
disabled or fails for any reason, the bridge shall be physically tended
and operated by local control as soon as possible, but no more than 45
minutes after malfunction or disability of the remote system.
Mechanical bypass and override capability of the remote system shall be
provided and maintained.
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
draw of the NJTRO Lower Hack Bridge, mile 3.4, at Jersey City shall
open on signal if at least a one-hour advance notice is given to the
drawtender at the Upper Hack bridge, mile 6.9, at Secaucus, New Jersey
by calling the number posted at the bridge. In the event the NJTRO HX
draw tender is at the Newark/Harrison (Morristown Line) Bridge, mile
5.8, on the Passaic River, up to an additional half hour delay is
permitted.
    (e) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
draw of the Amtrak Portal Bridge, mile 5.0, at Little Snake Hill, need
not open for the passage of vessel traffic Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays, from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 8
p.m. Additional bridge openings shall be provided for commercial
vessels from 6 a.m. to 7:20 a.m.; 9:20 a.m. to 10 a.m.; 4 p.m. to 4:30
p.m. and from 6:50 p.m. to 8 p.m., if at least a one-hour advance
notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. At all
other times the draw shall open on signal.
    (f) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
draw of the NJTRO Upper Hack Bridge, mile 6.9 at Secaucus, N.J. shall
open on signal unless the drawtender is at the NJTRO HX Bridge, mile
7.7 at Secaucus, N.J. over the Hackensack River, then up to a half hour
delay is permitted.
    (g) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
draw of the NJTRO HX Bridge at mile 7.7, shall open on signal if at
least a half hour notice is given to the drawtender at the Upper Hack
Bridge.
    (h) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
draw of the S46 Bridge, at mile 14.0, in Little Ferry, shall open on
signal if at least a twenty four hour advance notice is given by
calling the number posted at the bridge.
    (i) The draw of the Harold J. Dillard Memorial (Court Street)
Bridge, mile 16.2, Hackensack, shall open on signal if at least four
hours notice is given.
    (j) The draw of the New York Susquehanna and Western Railroad
bridge, mile 16.3, and the Midtown bridge, mile 16.5, both at
Hackensack, need not be opened for the passage of vessels, however, the
draws shall be restored to operable condition within 12 months after
notification by the District Commander to do so.

    Dated: May 30, 2014.
V.B. Gifford, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2014-14172 Filed 6-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52160-52163]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0015]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 15 individuals
for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will
enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without
meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0015 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0015. Follow the online
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.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET,

Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0015), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0015. Click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type
your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether
you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a
third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0015 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-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 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The 15 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber.
    On July 16, 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the
Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting
standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to
meet (57 FR 31458). The current Vision Exemption Program was
established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the
statutes governing exemptions made by Sec.  4007 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat.
107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the
procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case
basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision
standards of Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely in intrastate commerce with the vision
deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is
especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several
research studies designed to correlate past and future driving
performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the
best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record
of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found
at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving
performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better
than that of all CMV drivers collectively.\1\ The fact that experienced
monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver
program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the
same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are
also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will
continue to operate safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A thorough discussion of this issue may be found in a FHWA
final rule published in the Federal Register on March 26, 1996 and
available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-03-26/pdf/96-7226.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and

nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study
used three consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of
drivers in the first two years with their experiences in the final
year.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

David E. Bryant, Jr.

    Mr. Bryant, has a macular scar in the right eye due to sarcoidosis
in 1993. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Bryant has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Bryant reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years,
accumulating 750,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years,
accumulating 1.5 million miles, and buses for 30 years, accumulating
90,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving
record for the last three years shows two crashes, for which he was not
cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Zackary C. Crichton

    Mr. Crichton, 31, has retinopathy in his right eye due to
toxoplasmosis in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2019, his
optometrist stated, ``Zachary [sic] has had this condition since he was
12. At this time in my medical opinion, I do believe Zachary [sic] can
safely operate a commercial vehicle as he has for many years with this
condition.'' Mr. Crichton reported that he has driven straight trucks
for six years, accumulating 150,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for six years, accumulating 300,000 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Wyoming. His driving record for the last three years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Terence P. Dailey

    Mr. Dailey, 63, has corneal scars in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination
in 2019, his ophthalmologist stated, ``According to my medical opinion
based on his August 12, 2019 dilated comprehensive eye examination, he
is capable of operating a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Dailey reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 49 years, accumulating 1.2
million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for five years,
accumulating 75,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His
driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert K. Eggleston

    Mr. Eggleston, 31, has had amblyopia in the left eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
400. Following an examination in 2019, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In
my opinion this patient has sufficient vision to perform all driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Eggleston
reported that he has driven straight trucks for six years, accumulating
249,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for one year,
accumulating 1,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving
record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Luiz Gonzalez

    Mr. Gonzalez, 33, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``He has
lived his entire life with his vision exactly the way it is now and
poses no threat while driving a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Gonzalez
reported that he has driven straight trucks for five years,
accumulating 130,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New
Jersey. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Ahmed M. Gutale

    Mr. Gutale, 46, has a prosthetic in his left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 2004. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2019,
his ophthalmologist stated, ``I certify that in my opinion he has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Gutale reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 19 years, accumulating 1.5 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last
three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

James W. Harris

    Mr. Harris, 68, has had a paracentral scotoma in his right eye
since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and in his
left eye, 20/30. Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist
stated, ``Due to the long standing nature of his vision deficiency and
driving record, I feel he has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Harris reported
that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 50 years,
accumulating 1.6 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His
driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Dobbin L. Kirkbride

    Mr. Kirkbride, 54, has a cataract in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in
2019, his optometrist stated, ``After an in-depth conversation with Mr.
Kirkbride . . . it is my opinion that he has sufficient vision to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Kirkbride reported that he has
driven straight trucks for ten years, accumulating 520,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 33 years, accumulating 2.6 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the
last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Daniel F. Large

    Mr. Large, 40, has a retinal detachment in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2007. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
200, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2019, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``In summary, I believe Mr. Large has
sufficient vision to perform his tasks of operating a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Large reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12
years, accumulating 132,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
12 years, accumulating 168,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Missouri. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jonathan D. Matlasz

    Mr. Matlasz, 44, has had lenticonus in his right eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``He has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Matlasz reported that he has driven straight
trucks for eight years, accumulating 120,000 miles. He holds a Class B
CDL from Connecticut. His driving record for the last three years

shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

James Muldoon

    Mr. Muldoon, 57, has a cataract in his left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 1966. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2019, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``Based of records I have seen from 2011 he has
no interval changes in his vision and his commercial license status
should not be changed, as in my opinion he has sufficient vision to
drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Muldoon reported that he has driven
tractor-trailer combinations for 13 years, accumulating 1.17 million
miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from New York. His driving record for
the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Andrew R. Peel

    Mr. Peel, 44, has a retinal detachment in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2019,
his optometrist stated, ``In my opinion, Andrew has sufficient vision
to operate a commercial vehicle, as he has been doing this for the past
20 years, as long as he is wearing his glasses prescription and has
appropriate mirrors for a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Peel reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 391,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 17 years, accumulating 459,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana. His driving record for the
last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

William D. Shelt

    Mr. Shelt, 43, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/100.
Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``Patient has
sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Shelt reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 600,000
miles. He holds an operator's license from Alabama. His driving record
for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

James L. Stacy

    Mr. Stacy, 53, has a macular hole in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2008. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2019, his
optometrist stated, ``Due to Mr. Stacy's intact visual fields and 20/20
O.U. acuity at distance and near, I believe Mr. Stacy has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Stacy reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for ten years, accumulating 500,000 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Arkansas. His driving record for the last three years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

James J. Walsh

    Mr. Walsh, 42, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
60. Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``I do
feel he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Walsh reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 21 years, accumulating 850,000 miles. He holds a
Class B CDL from New Hampshire. His driving record for the last three
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated
under the DATES section of the notice.

    Issued on: September 25, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-21285 Filed 9-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73372]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28875]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73737; File No. SR-ICEEU-2014-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Clearance of
Additional Sovereign Contracts

December 4, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On October 20, 2014, 2014, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear
Europe'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change SR-ICEEU-2014-19 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on November 4, 2014.\3\ The
Commission did not receive comments on the proposed rule change. For
the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-73459 (Oct. 29,
2014), 79 FR 65443 (Nov. 4, 2014) (SR-ICEEU-2014-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICE Clear Europe proposes to clear additional CDS contracts that
are Western European sovereign CDS contracts referencing the Kingdom of
Belgium and the Republic of Austria (the ``Additional WE Sovereign
Contracts''). ICE Clear Europe currently clears CDS contracts
referencing four other Western European sovereigns: Ireland, the
Republic of Italy, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Spain.\4\
ICE Clear Europe believes clearance of the Additional WE Sovereign
Contracts will benefit the markets for credit default swaps on Western
European sovereigns by offering to market participants the benefits of
clearing, including reduction in counterparty risk and safeguarding of
margin assets pursuant to ICE Clear Europe's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-71920 (Apr. 9, 2014) 79 FR
21331 (Apr. 15, 2015) (SR-ICEEU-2014-04); (order approving rule
change to clear other Western European sovereign CDS contracts) (the
``Prior WE Sovereigns Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe represents that the Additional WE Sovereign
Contracts will constitute ``Non-STEC Single Name Contracts'' for
purposes of the CDS Procedures and accordingly will be governed by
Paragraph 10 of the CDS Procedures, consistent with treatment of the
Western European sovereign CDS contracts currently cleared by ICE Clear
Europe. Moreover, ICE Clear Europe states that clearing of the
Additional WE Sovereign Contracts will not require any changes to ICE
Clear Europe's existing Clearing Rules and Procedures, risk management
framework (including relevant policies) or margin model.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For a description of previously approved changes to ICE
Clear Europe's risk management framework to accommodate clearing of
Western European sovereign CDS contracts, see the Prior WE
Sovereigns Order. ICE Clear Europe represents that it has performed
a variety of empirical analyses related to clearing of the
Additional WE Sovereign Contracts under its margin methodology,
including back tests and stress tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \6\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such self-regulatory organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \7\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a
clearing agency are designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that clearing of the proposed Additional WE
Sovereign Contracts is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A
of the Act \8\ and regulations thereunder applicable to it, including
the standards under Rule 17Ad-22.\9\ Specifically, the Commission
believes that the proposal to clear the Additional WE Sovereign
Contracts in the same manner as other Western European sovereign CDS
contracts, consistent with ICE Clear Europe's existing clearing
arrangements and related financial safeguards, protections, risk
management policies and procedures and margin methodology, is designed
to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \11\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICEEU-2014-18) be, and
hereby is, approved.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \13\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28875 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          SECTOR POLICIES AND PROGRAMS DIVISION
                       OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
                               OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

TO:	Docket No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208

FROM:	Bill Schrock, Allison Costa
	EPA/Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:	Summary of Communications with Industry and Stakeholder Input for Risk and Technology Review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Introduction

This memorandum summarizes the communications between EPA and affected facilities to discuss EPA's risk and technology review (RTR) for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category under section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This memorandum is organized as follows:

 Introduction
 Communications with Industry Trade Groups and Trade Group Members
      Attachments:
          A.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA) Communications Regarding Facility List
          A.2 Communications from Cargill  -  Blair Facility Regarding HAP
          A.3	Summary of Conference Call between the EPA and NOPA, October 30, 2018, and NOPA White Paper on Periods of Initial Startup
          A.4 Communications from NOPA on Periods of Initial Startup and Malfunction, December 6, 2018
 CommunicationS WITH Industry trade groups and trade group members

EPA conducted meetings with several stakeholders in the development of the risk and technology review, via teleconference or site visit. These communications include the following conferences and exchanges:

 EPA met with the National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA) via teleconference on November 3, 2016 to notify them that EPA had begun work on the RTR for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category and provide information on the rulemaking process. Following the teleconference, EPA forwarded a draft list of facilities to NOPA on November 3, 2016. NOPA provided updates to the facility list on December 9, 2016. (The information provided is included in Attachment A.1 of this document.)

 EPA met with Jay Frazer and Nick Remn of Cargill Corn Milling North America (Blair, NE) via teleconference on January 20, 2017 to discuss specific HAPs emitted from the Cargill  -  Blair facility and to determine whether the stacks associated with the emissions included emissions from the vegetable oil extraction and production operations. Following the teleconference, Michelle Bucklin of Cargill provided information to confirm the sources of the HAP included two vegetable oil production processes (flaker conditioner aspiration and cooker expeller aspiration) and provided emissions estimates for each HAP from each process. (The information provided is included in Attachment A.2 of this document.)

 EPA conducted a site visit to the Cargill, Inc. - Fayetteville, NC facility on December 5, 2017. EPA observed the vegetable oil production processes and discussed potential revisions to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction revisions.

 EPA met with the National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA) via teleconference on August 30, 2018 to discuss the status of the RTR and discuss the SSM provisions.

 EPA conducted a site visit to the Perdue Agribusiness, LLC/Marietta  -  Bainbridge, PA facility on September 26, 2018. EPA observed the vegetable oil production processes and controls and discussed initial startup and shutdown procedures at the facility.

 EPA met with Lorraine Gershman of NOPA, NOPA Counsel, and NOPA member companies on October 30, 2018 to discuss alternate standards for periods of initial startup or malfunction for the risk and technology review. NOPA provided a white paper on the initial startup provisions for the call. (A summary of the meeting and a copy of materials provided is included in Attachment A.3 of this document.)

 As a follow up to the October 30, 2018 teleconference, NOPA provided a submission to EPA on December 6, 2018 regarding initial startup periods and malfunction periods and recommendations for work practice standards that could be adopted for these periods. (A copy of the materials provided is included in Attachment A.4 of this document.)

 EPA met with NOPA representatives (David Hovermale, Tom Hammer) on March 5, 2018 to discuss proposed rule options and industry concerns regarding periods of malfunction.


[Federal Register: February 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 6548-6549]
[DOCID:fr04fe08-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Approval of Noise Compatibility Program; Hartsfield-Jackson
Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the Noise Compatibility Program submitted by the City of
Atlanta under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the Aviation Safety and
Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'') and 14 CFR
part 150. These findings are made in recognition of the description of
Federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52
(1980). On April 10, 2007, the FAA determined that the noise exposure
maps submitted by the City of Atlanta under Part 150 were in compliance
with applicable requirements. On January 24, 2008, the FAA approved the
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Noise Compatibility
Program. All of the recommendations of the program were approved. No
program elements relating to new or revised flight procedures for noise
abatement were proposed by the airport operator.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Noise Compatibility
Program is January 24, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott L. Seritt, Federal Aviation
Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue
Campus Building, Suite 2-260, College Park, Georgia 30337, phone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be
reviewed at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given
its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program for Hartsfield-
Jackson Atlanta International Airport, effective January 24, 2008.
    Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a Noise Exposure Map may submit to the FAA a Noise
Compatibility Program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses with
the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires such
programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected
parties, including local communities, government agencies, airport
users, and FAA personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with 14 CFR part 150 is a local program, not a Federal Program. The FAA
does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport operator with
respect to which measure should be recommended for action. The FAA's
approval or disapproval of part 150 program recommendations is measured
according to the standards expressed in part 150 and the Act, and is
limited to the following determinations:
    a. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of 14 CFR part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types of classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
Noise Compatibility Program are delineated in 14 CFR part 150, Sec.
150.5 Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of
land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by
itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal
action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures
may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an
environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not
constitute a

commitment by the FAA to financially assist the implementation of the
program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program
are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where Federal
funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the
FAA Airports District Office in College Park, Georgia.
    The City of Atlanta submitted to the FAA on March 29, 2007, the
Noise Exposure Maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced
during the noise compatibility planning study conducted from February
6, 2003, through September 5, 2007. The Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport Noise Exposure Maps were determined by FAA to be
in compliance with applicable requirements on April 10, 2007. Notice of
this determination was published in the Federal Register on April 10,
2007.
    The Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport study contains
a proposed Noise Compatibility Program comprised of actions designed
for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent
jurisdictions from September 5, 2007 beyond the year 2012. It was
requested that FAA evaluate and approve this material as a Noise
Compatibility Program as described in section 47504 of the Act. The FAA
began is review of the Program on September 7, 2007, and was required
by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within
180 days (other than the use of new or modified flight procedures for
noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within
the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program.
    The submitted program contained seven (7) proposed actions for
noise mitigation on and off the airport. The FAA completed its review
and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the
Act and 14 CFR part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program,
therefore, was approved by the FAA effective January 24, 2008.
    Outright approval was granted for all of the specific program
elements. These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval signed by the FAA on January 24, 2008. The Record of Approval,
as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the
submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and
at the administrative office of the City of Atlanta. The Record of
Approval also will be available on-line at: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental/airport_noise/part_150/states/
.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 25, 2008.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 08-464 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M