[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11642-11644]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04801]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0071]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 28 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted December 3, 2015. The exemptions
expire on December 3, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

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

II. Background

    On November 2, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (80 FR 67472). That notice listed 28 applicants' case
histories. The 28 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 28 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

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

safely. The 28 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this
category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons, including amblyopia, cataract, central scotoma,
chorioretinal scar, complete loss of vision, detached retina,
esotropia, macular degeneration, myopic degeneration, ocular aneurysm,
optic nerve atrophy, optic nerve coloboma, optic neuropathy, prosthetic
eye, refractive amblyopia, and retinal detachment. In most cases, their
eye conditions were not recently developed. Sixteen of the applicants
were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood.
    The 12 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of 6 to 25 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 28 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 3 to 43
years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes,
and 2 drivers were convicted of moving violations in CMVs.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the November 2, 2015
notice (80 FR 67472).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 28 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes, and 2 drivers
were convicted of moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 28 applicants

listed in the notice of November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67472).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 28 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 28 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Bruce D. Amundson (IA)
Terry M. Baldwin (PA)
Gene B. Clyde, Jr. (NY)
Joseph Coelho Jr. (RI)
Levi R. Coutcher (WA)
Leonard H. Culbertson (GA)
Craig L. Dawson, Sr. (OH)
Jason R. Gast (MO)
Nirmal S. Gill (CA)
Robert C. Green, Jr. (PA)
Stanley Grubb (KY)
Louis M. Hankins (IL)
Nathan H. Jacobs (NM)
Danny L. Keplinger (VA)
Kimber S. Krushinski (NY)
Carmelo Lana (NJ)
Keith A. Lang (TX)
Nathan D. Langham (IL)
Michael S. Lewis (NC)
Hector J. Lopez (NC)
John V. Narretto, Jr. (LA)
Branden J. Ramos (CA)
Sonny Scott (OH)
Jarrod R. Seirer (KS)
Vince A. Thompson (OR)
Daniel R. Viscaya (NC)
Carlos Vives, Jr. (NJ)
Otis H. Wright, Jr. (MD)

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

    Issued on: February 24, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-04801 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 11008-11009]
[DOCID:fr12mr07-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-88-000]

Egan Hub Storage, LLC; Notice of Application

March 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 20, 2007, Egan Hub Storage, LLC, 5400
Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310, filed in Docket No. CP07-
88-000 an application pursuant to section 7of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA), as amended, to expand the Egan Gas Storage Facility by
constructing an additional salt dome storage cavern, a 24-inch 16.5-
mile loop of existing Line 73, a new meter and regulator station,
associated interconnecting pipelines and appurtenant facilities, and
upgrade an existing meter and regulator station at the Egan Gas Storage
Facility in Acadia Parish, Louisiana, all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's website
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY, (202)
208-3676.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Ashley Leder, Director, Certificates and Reporting, Egan Hub Storage,
LLC, 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77251 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents

filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the
mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will
not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final
order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments
protests and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
(http://www.ferc.gov) site under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Comment Date: March 26, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4336 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76792-76793]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31478]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65870; File No. SR-OCC-2011-16]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Allow for the Clearing of Real Estate Index Futures Contracts

December 2, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ notice is hereby given that on November 21, 2011, The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which items have been prepared primarily by OCC. OCC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder \3\ so that the proposal was
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change would accommodate certain cash-settled
futures proposed to be traded by ELX Futures L.P. (``ELX'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC 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 Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its capacity as a derivatives clearing organization (``DCO''),
registered as such under the Commodity Exchange Act (the ``CEA''), OCC
performs the clearing function for ELX and other futures exchanges.
OCC's existing By-Laws and Rules already accommodate the clearing of
cash-settled futures. However, a sentence is proposed to be added to
Article XII, Section 2 of OCC's By-Laws to more explicitly describe the
rights and obligations of buyers and sellers of cash-settled futures,
such as the Agricultural Futures and the Interest Rate Futures. An
addition to OCC Rule 1301(e) is also proposed to allow OCC to recover
the costs that it would incur in the event of a Clearing Member's
failure to satisfy a non-U.S. Dollar settlement obligation, such as the
cost of purchasing the non-U.S. Dollar currency.
    All of the Euro Interest Rate Futures will be settled in Euros. OCC
already clears futures contracts that are settled in Euros, and
management believes that the facilities and procedures established in
connection with the settlement of the existing Euro-settled futures
will generally be sufficient to permit the clearing and settlement of
the Euro Interest Rate Futures.\4\ ELX intends to use, as a final
settlement price for each Interest Rate Future, the published
settlement price of the corresponding contract on Eurex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ File No. SR-OCC-2010-18, Securities Exchange Act Release No.
63222 (November 1, 2010), 75 FR 68390 (November 5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ELX plans to use as a final settlement price for each Agricultural
Future, the published settlement price of the corresponding contract on
the Chicago Board of Trade.
    OCC performs the clearing function for ELX pursuant to the Clearing
Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Clearing Agreement, OCC has
agreed to clear the specific types of contracts enumerated therein and
may agree to clear additional types through the execution by both
parties of a new ``Schedule C'' to the Clearing Agreement. A copy of
three proposed new Schedule Cs providing for the clearance of
Agricultural Futures, Euribor Futures and German Interest Rate Futures,
respectively, which are attached to File SR-OCC-2011-16 as Exhibits 5A,
5B and 5C.
    OCC believes that the proposed changes to its By-Laws are
consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Exchange Act''), because
they are designed to permit OCC to perform clearing services for
products that are subject to the jurisdiction of the CFTC without
adversely affecting OCC's obligations with respect to the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions or the
protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed rule
change is not inconsistent with any rules of OCC, including any rules
proposed to be amended.

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

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    OCC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \6\ and became
effective on filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Supra note 2.
    \6\ Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-OCC-2011-16 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 No. SR-OCC-2011-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for inspection and
copying at OCC's principal office and OCC's Web site (http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_11_16.pdf). 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 No. SR-OCC-
2011-16 and should be submitted on or before December 29, 2011.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31478 Filed 12-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 153 (Thursday, August 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37445-37446]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF17-4-000]

Bonneville Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 31, 2017, Bonneville Power Administration
submitted tariff filing per: BP-18 IS-18 Rate to be effective 10/1/
2017.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added

to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 30, 2017.

    Dated: August 2, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16880 Filed 8-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 57725-57727]
[DOCID:fr03oc08-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58666; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 1 and 2
Thereto To Remove From Rule 7019 the Fees for Receiving Index Values

September 26, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 12, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by Nasdaq. On September 5, 2008, Nasdaq filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On September 25, 2008,
Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, 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

    Nasdaq is proposing to remove from the Nasdaq Rule 7019 fees for
receiving index values. Nasdaq's rule book contains rules pertaining to
``facilities'' of the exchange, and indexes are not such ``facilities''
within the meaning of the Act.
    The text of the proposed rule change to Rule 7019 is below.
Proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
7019. Market Data Distributor Fees
    (a) No change.
    (b) The charge to be paid by Distributors of the following Nasdaq
Market Center real time data feeds shall be:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Monthly direct    Monthly internal   Monthly external
                                                             access fee      distributor fee    distributor fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Specific Data:
    Dynamic Intraday...................................  .................  .................  .................
    TotalView..........................................             $2,000             $1,000             $2,500
    OpenView...........................................             $1,000               $500             $1,250
[Market Summary Statistics]:
    [Intraday].........................................             [$500]              [$50]           [$1,500]
        [Real Time Index]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) and (d) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq designs and licenses to financial product issuers and
sponsors and to other interested parties a number of Nasdaq-proprietary
securities indexes. Nasdaq also calculates the values of Nasdaq and, on
occasion, non-Nasdaq indexes and disseminates such values to
subscribers. The Nasdaq indexes include broad market indexes, such as
the Nasdaq-100 and the Nasdaq Composite, sectoral indexes, such as
Nasdaq Biotechnology, Nasdaq Insurance or Nasdaq Transportation,
international indexes, such as Nasdaq Israel and Nasdaq China, and
custom co-branded indexes, such as Nasdaq Clean Edge. Some of these
indexes include only those components that are listed on Nasdaq, while
others may also include components listed on other exchanges.
    All market participants, both members and non-members of Nasdaq,
are currently able to subscribe to Nasdaq's index dissemination
service. Subscribers currently also receive intra-day asset values as
well as certain once-a-day information for exchange traded funds
(``ETFs'').\3\ The intra-day asset values for ETFs that Nasdaq
disseminates can be calculated by Nasdaq itself (subject to negotiating
an appropriate agreement on commercial

terms with the ETF sponsor) or by a third party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Nasdaq is submitting to the Commission in connection with
this filing the list of indexes and ETFs that are currently (as of
the date of this filing) included in the Nasdaq index dissemination
service. This list changes frequently, and an up-to-date list is
available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/productsservices/
dataproducts/realtimeindexes/indexsymbols.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq believes that the business of creating and licensing indexes
is highly competitive. Some of Nasdaq's prominent competitors are Dow
Jones, Russell, Standard & Poor, as well as many others. It is Nasdaq's
understanding that license fees that Nasdaq and its competitors charge
for the actual use of their respective indexes in connection with the
creation or trading of financial products linked to such indexes have
never been subject to Commission oversight. However, Nasdaq's former
corporate parent, then known as the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), historically included in its rule book
charges for distributing index values,\4\ and this practice carried
over into the Nasdaq rule book when Nasdaq was registered as a national
securities exchange in 2006.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-45685
(Apr. 3, 2002) (approving SR-NASD-2001-86, modifying the index
distribution fee, which was included in the NASD Manual).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-53128 (Jan. 13,
2006) (approval of Nasdaq's application for registration as a
national securities exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq believes that by calculating and distributing index and ETF
values, it provides information regarding a non-exchange activity.\6\
As such, Nasdaq believes that its index dissemination service is not a
facility of a national securities exchange within the meaning of the
Act and that it is not required under Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \7\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \8\ to file rules regarding the applicable
charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The information used in calculating the values of the Nasdaq
indexes is made publicly available, and Nasdaq's status as a self-
regulatory organization gives it no special advantage over any other
entity that may wish to calculate the values of these indexes.
Generally, the ``inputs'' required to make the calculation include
last sale prices and total shares outstanding for the underlying
securities, and the weighting of each underlying security in the
index. The Nasdaq systems that calculate index values receive the
price data in the same manner as other subscribers to the relevant
data streams (i.e., from the relevant ``Tapes''). The total shares
outstanding data are derived from the companies' SEC public filings,
from the notifications that Nasdaq-listed issuers are required to
submit to Nasdaq in the event of 5% or greater changes in the total
shares outstanding, and on occasion from information that issuers
may voluntarily communicate to Nasdaq. (In all cases, the current
total shares outstanding figures are posted on a Nasdaq Web site,
and any changes to the posted figures are reflected on the Web site
no later than when such changes become effective for index
calculations.) Component weightings are normally determined by index
owners using their proprietary algorithms. In the case of Nasdaq-
owned indexes, component weightings are determined daily by Nasdaq
(in its capacity as the index owner). Nasdaq makes these weightings
available to the public for purchase.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If, at a later date, Nasdaq proposed to modify the manner in which
it disseminates index values causing this service to fit within the
definition of a facility of the exchange, or if Nasdaq proposed to tie
the fees that distributors pay for receiving index values to fees for
or usage of exchange services,\9\ Nasdaq would file a proposed rule
change with the Commission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Nasdaq does not currently tie the fees that distributors pay
for receiving index values to fees for or usage of exchange
services. Exchange services include, for example, listing and
trading.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56237 (Aug. 9,
2007), 72 FR 46118 (Aug. 16, 2007) (approving removal from exchange
rule book of provisions governing operation of the ACES system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that its index dissemination service is not a
facility of a national securities exchange within the meaning of the
Act and the terms of this service are not rules that must be filed with
the Commission under Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\12\ Therefore, removing the applicable provisions from the
Nasdaq rule book would be consistent with the provisions of Section
6(b) of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq 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 Act, as amended.

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 35 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 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-NASDAQ-2008-018 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-018. 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 inspection
and copying 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 Nasdaq. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-018 and should
be submitted on or before October 24, 2008.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23363 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 119)]
[Notices]
[Page 34974]
[DOCID:fr19jn08-109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; Survey of Airman Satisfaction With
Aeromedical Certification Services

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. This survey assesses airman opinion of key
dimensions of service quality.

DATES: Please submit comments by August 18, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Survey of Airman Satisfaction with Aeromedical Certification
Services.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of an approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0707.
    Forms(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: A total of 4,800 Respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected as needed.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 15 minutes per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 1,200 hours annually.
    Abstract: This survey assesses airman opinion of key dimensions of
service quality. These dimensions, identified by the OMB Statistical
Policy Office, are courtesy, competence, reliability, and
communication.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 11, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
 [FR Doc. E8-13762 Filed 6-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32643]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12166]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 240

[Release No. 34-77617A; File No. S7-25-11]
RIN 3235-AL10

Business Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers and
Major Security-Based Swap Participants; Correction

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') is making a technical correction to a burden estimate
for Paperwork Reduction Act purposes and a corresponding estimate in
the Economic Analysis of the business conduct standards for security-
based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants.

DATES: Effective: May 24, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Gonzalez, Assistant Chief
Counsel--Sales Practices, Office of Chief Counsel, Division of Trading
and Markets, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, at the Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Business Conduct Standards for Security-
Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants (FR Doc.
2016-10918), published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2016, the
following corrections are made:
    1. On page 30090, in the third column, under the heading ``1.
Verification of Status,'' the second sentence is hereby deleted and
replaced with the sentence: ``As noted above, Rule 15Fh-3(a)(3) differs
from the CFTC's rule, which instead includes an opt-in for plans
``defined in'' ERISA, but not subject to Title I of ERISA.'' Footnote
1529 remains as published.
    2. Also on page 30090, in the third column, in the fourth sentence
under the same heading, the phrase ``complying with the rules, as
adopted,'' is replaced with the phrase ``complying with Rules 15Fh-
3(a)(1) and (2)''.
    3. On page 30091, in the first column, under the same heading, a
new paragraph begins after footnote 1531, beginning with the sentence
``We do not anticipate any ongoing burdens with respect to this rule.''
    4. Also on page 30091, in the first column, under the same heading,
the following sentence is added to the end of the last paragraph under
this heading: ``We also anticipate that all 55 SBS Entities will incur,
on average, an initial internal burden of 30 minutes to prepare the
notice required pursuant to Rule 15Fh-3(a)(3) for counterparties
defined in Rule 15Fh-2(d)(4), for an aggregate total of 27.5 hours.''
    5. On page 30110, in the first column, in the first sentence of the
sixth paragraph under the heading ``C. Costs and Benefits of Business
Conduct Rules, 1. Verification of Status and Know Your Counterparty
Rules,'' the estimate for the direct costs of compliance is corrected
to ``$28,050'' from ``$17,600''.
    6. Footnote 1655 on page 30110, is corrected to: ``Initial outside
counsel cost: $500 * (20 non-CFTC registered SBS Entities) = $10,000.
Initial adherence letter and notification burden: (In-house attorney at
$380 per hour) x 47.5 hours = $18,050.''
    7. On page 30120, in the first column, in the fourth paragraph
under the heading ``4. Special Entities, a. Scope and Verification,''
the third sentence is corrected to: ``Out of 3,635 special entities
subscribed to the ISDA August 2012 DF Protocol, 1,453 market
participants (approximately 40%) are special entities not defined in
Rule 15Fh-2(d)(3).''

    Dated: May 19, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12166 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P