[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8481-8484]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01611]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79832; File No. SR-BOX-2017-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') Options Facility

January 18, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 5, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to on
the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. While changes to the fee
schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the
changes will become operative on January 9, 2017. The text of the
proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section III (Complex Order
Transaction Fees) to specify that all Complex Order transactions
executed through the Exchange's auction mechanisms will be subject to
Section I (Exchange Fees) and II (Liquidity Fees and Credits) of the
BOX Fee Schedule. The Exchange recently amended its rules to permit
Complex Order \5\ transactions to execute through the Solicitation
Auction mechanism \6\ and the Exchange is submitting this filing to
clarify the fees that are applicable to these transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in Rule 7240(a)(5), the term ``Complex Order''
means any order involving the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of
two or more different options series in the same underlying
security, for the same account, in a ratio that is equal to or
greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-
one (3.00) and for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy.
    \6\ See Securities [sic] Release No. 79557 (December 14, 2016),
81 FR 92919 (December 20, 2016) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness SR-BOX-2016-57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, Complex Order transactions are subject to the fees and
credits set forth in Section III (Complex Order Transaction Fees) of
the BOX Fee Schedule while transactions executed through the
Facilitation and Solicitation auction mechanisms are subject to
Sections I (Exchange Fees) and II (Liquidity Fees and Credits). The
Exchange proposes to add language that clarifies that Complex Order
transactions executed through Auction Mechanisms \7\ will be subject to
Sections I (Exchange Fees) and II (Liquidity Fees and Credits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ BOX's auction mechanisms include the Price Improvement
Period (``PIP''), Complex Order Price Improvement Period
(``COPIP''), Facilitation Auction and Solicitation Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Section I (Exchange Fees), the Exchange proposes the
following fees for Complex Order transactions executed through the
Solicitation auction mechanism. For Agency Orders \8\ and Solicitation
Orders, Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market Makers will
be charged $0.15 in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes, and Public
Customers will not be charged. For Responses in the Solicitation
Auction, all account types will be charged $0.25 for Penny Pilot
Classes and $0.40 for Non-Penny Pilot Classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An Agency Order is the block-size order that an Order Flow
Provider ``OFP'' seeks to facilitate as agent through the
Facilitation Auction or Solicitation Auction mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange then proposes to treat Complex Order transactions
executed through the Solicitation mechanism in the same manner as
single legged Solicitation transactions for liquidity fees and credits,
which are applied in addition to any applicable exchange fees as
described in Section I of the Fee Schedule. The fee structure for
liquidity fees and credits for Complex Orders executed through the
Solicitation mechanisms will be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Fee for adding     Credit for  removing
      Facilitation and           liquidity  (all       liquidity  (all
  solicitation transactions      account types)        account types)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Penny Pilot Classes.....                 $0.75                (0.75)
Penny Pilot Classes.........                 $0.25                (0.25)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Complex Order transactions executed through the Solicitation
mechanism will be assessed a ``removal'' credit only if the Agency
Order does not trade with their contra order. Responses to Complex
Order transactions executed through the Solicitation mechanism shall be
charged the ``add'' fee.
    Finally, the Exchange is proposing to make additional non-
substantive changes to the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange is
renumbering certain footnotes to accommodate the above proposed changes
to the Fee Schedule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to specify that Complex
Order transactions executed through the Exchange's Auction Mechanisms
are subject to fees and credits in Sections I (Exchange Fees) and II
(Liquidity Fees and Credits) is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. The new ability for Complex Order transactions to
execute through the Solicitation Auction mechanism is similar to
Complex Orders executing through the COPIP and Facilitation Auction
mechanisms. As such, the Exchange believes it is reasonable for the
fees for Complex Orders executed through the Solicitation mechanism to
mimic the current COPIP and Facilitation mechanism transaction
fees.\10\ In the BOX Fee Schedule, COPIP transactions are not subject
to Section III (Complex Order Transactions) and are instead treated the
same as PIP transactions. Similarly, Complex Order Facilitation Auction
transactions are not subject to Section III (Complex Order
Transactions) and are instead treated the same as single-legged
Facilitation transactions in Section I. The Exchange believes the
proposed fees will allow the Exchange to be competitive with other
exchanges and to apply fees and credits in a manner that is equitable
among all BOX Participants. The proposed fees are intended to attract
Complex Orders to the Exchange by offering market participants
incentives to submit their Complex Orders through the Exchange's
Solicitation auction mechanism. The Exchange believes it is appropriate
to provide incentives for market participants to submit orders to the
auction mechanisms, resulting in greater liquidity and ultimately
benefiting all Participants trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Release Nos. 71312 (January 15,
2014), 79 FR 3649 (January 22, 2014) (SR-BOX-2014-01); 78827
(September 13, 2016), 81 FR 64218 (September 19, 2016) (SR-BOX-2016-
42); where the Exchange established fees for Complex Orders
submitted to the PIP and the Facilitation Mechanisms in the BOX Fee
Schedule, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Fees
    Currently, for Facilitation Orders, the Exchange assesses a $0.15
per contract fee for Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market
Makers in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes and does not assess a fee
for Public Customers. The Exchange proposes to assess the same fees for
Solicitation Orders. The Exchange believes that charging Professional
Customers and Broker Dealers and Market Makers more than Public
Customers for Solicitation Orders is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The securities markets generally, and BOX in
particular, have historically aimed to improve markets for investors
and develop various features within the market structure for Public
Customer benefit. The Exchange believes that charging lower fees to
Public Customers in Facilitation and Solicitation transactions is
reasonable and, ultimately, will benefit all Participants trading on
the Exchange by attracting Public Customer order flow.
    Currently, for Responses in the Facilitation Auction mechanism, the
Exchange assesses a $0.25 fee in Penny Pilot Classes and a $0.40 fee in
Non-Penny Pilot Classes, regardless of account type. The Exchange
proposes to assess the same fees for Responses in the Solicitation
Auction mechanism. The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory to charge higher exchange fees for
responders to Complex Orders in the Solicitation auction than for
initiators of these orders. Moreover, the higher fees for responders to
Complex Orders are similar with fees charged by another options
exchange.\11\ For example, at the ISE, fees for Responses to Crossing
Orders are $0.50, regardless of Participant type, in both Penny and
Non-Penny Pilot Classes where fees for initiating Crossing Orders range
from $0.20 and $0.25. Further, the Exchange believes its proposed fees
for Responses in the Solicitation Auction mechanism are reasonable as
they are identical to the fees charged for Complex Orders executed
through the Facilitation auction mechanism on the Exchange. The
Exchange also notes that the proposed fees for Responses to
Solicitation Orders are not unfairly discriminatory because they apply
equally to all Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') Fee
Schedule Section I available at https://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to establish different fees
for Solicitation transactions in Penny Pilot Classes compared to
transactions in Non-Penny Pilot Classes. The Exchange makes this
distinction throughout the BOX Fee Schedule, including the Exchange
Fees for PIP and COPIP Transactions. The Exchange believes it is
reasonable to establish higher fees for Non-Penny Pilot Classes because
these Classes are typically less actively traded and have wider
spreads.
Liquidity Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes the proposed liquidity fees and credits for
Complex Orders executed through the Solicitation auction mechanism are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the liquidity fees and credits fee structure aims to attract
order flow to the Solicitation mechanism, potentially providing greater
liquidity within the overall BOX Market to the benefit of all BOX
market participants. The Exchange notes that the proposed fees and
credits for Complex Order transactions executed through the
Solicitation mechanism offset one another in any particular
transaction.

The result is that BOX will collect a fee from Participants that add
liquidity on BOX and credit another Participant an equal amount for
removing liquidity. Stated otherwise, the collection of these liquidity
fees will not directly result in revenue to BOX, but will simply allow
BOX to provide the credit incentive to Participants in order to attract
order flow. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide
incentives to market participants to direct order flow to remove
liquidity from BOX, similar to various and widely-used, exchange-
sponsored payment for order flow programs. Further, the Exchange
believes that fees for adding liquidity on BOX will not deter
Participants from seeking to add liquidity to the BOX market so that
they may interact with those participants seeking to remove liquidity.
    The Exchange continues to believe it is reasonable to establish
different fees and credits for Solicitation transactions in Penny Pilot
Classes compared to transactions in Non-Penny Pilot Classes. The
Exchange makes this distinction throughout the BOX Fee Schedule,
including the liquidity fees and credits for PIP and COPIP
Transactions. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to establish
higher fees and credits for Non-Penny Pilot Classes because these
Classes are typically less actively traded and have wider spreads. The
Exchange believes that offering a higher rebate will incentivize order
flow in Non-Penny Pilot issues on the Exchange, ultimately benefitting
all Participants trading on BOX.
    Further, the Exchange continues to believe it is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only assess liquidity fees
and credits on Agency Orders that do not trade with their contra order,
and the Responses to these Orders. As stated above, liquidity fees and
credits are meant to incentivize order flow, and the Exchange believes
incentives are not necessary for internalized orders in these
mechanisms that only trade against their contra order. Additionally,
other Exchanges also make this distinction in their Solicitation
auction mechanism.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ISE Schedule of Fees at http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf. Under the
ISE Fee Schedule, in the equivalent of Penny Pilot Classes, the
initiator receives a ``break-up'' rebate only for contracts that are
submitted to the Facilitation and Solicitation mechanisms that do
not trade with their contra order. The responder fee for these
Orders is only applied to any contracts for which the rebate is
provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing exchanges. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects
this competitive environment.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is designed
to provide greater specificity and precision within the Fee Schedule
with respect to the fees that will be applicable to Complex Order
transactions executed through the Exchange's Solicitation auction
mechanism.
    The Exchange believes that adopting these fees will not impose a
burden on competition among various Exchange Participants. The proposed
fees are meant to mimic the fees currently assessed for Complex Orders
executed through the Facilitation auction mechanism. Submitting an
order through an auction mechanism is entirely voluntary and
Participants can determine which type of order they wish to submit, if
any, to the Exchange.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees will enhance
competition between exchanges because it is designed to allow the
Exchange to better compete with other exchanges for Complex Order flow.
In this regard, the new feature which allows Complex Order transactions
to execute through the Solicitation mechanism is being introduced by
the Exchange and BOX is unable to absolutely determine the impact that
the proposed fees proposed herein will have on trading. That said,
however, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees would not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\14\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2017-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2017-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for

inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2017-01, and should be
submitted on or before February 15, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01611 Filed 1-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 36744-36746]
[DOCID:fr05jy07-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55971; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-66]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Regarding Its Open Outcry Allocation Rules

June 28, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 18, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by CBOE. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend its open outcry allocation rules for classes
trading on the Hybrid Trading System (``Hybrid''). The text of the
proposed rule change is available at CBOE, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and (http://www.cboe.org/Legal).

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any

comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to modify its open outcry allocation
rules for Hybrid classes, which are contained in paragraph (b) of Rules
6.45A, Priority and Allocation of Equity Option Trades on the CBOE
Hybrid System, and 6.45B, Priority and Allocation of Trades in Index
Options and Options on ETFs on the CBOE Hybrid System, as applicable.
Under the existing allocation rules, at the same execution price: (i)
Public customer orders in the electronic book have first priority, with
multiple public customer orders prioritized based on time priority;
(ii) in-crowd market participants and broker-dealer orders resting in
the electronic book collectively have second priority, with the broker-
dealer orders getting a ``book market participant'' share;\5\ and (iii)
electronic quotes of Market-Makers have third priority, with multiple
bids or offers prioritized based on the electronic allocation algorithm
in effect for the option class.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under the existing allocation rules, the cumulative number
of broker-dealer orders in the electronic book at the best price are
deemed to be one ``book market participant'' regardless of the
number of broker-dealer orders in the book. Also under the existing
rules, the allocation due the broker-dealer orders in the electronic
book by virtue of their being deemed a ``book market participant''
is as follows: If two or more bids (offers) represent the best
price, one of which represents a book market participant, priority
is afforded to the in-crowd market participants in the sequence in
which their bids (offers) were made; provided, however, that (i) the
first in-crowd market participant to respond is entitled to 70% of
the order; (ii) the second in-crowd market participant to respond
(if ascertainable) is entitled to 70% of the remainder of the order
(i.e., 70% of 30%); and (iii) the balance of the order is
apportioned equally among the remaining in-crowd market participants
bidding (offering) at the same price and the book market participant
share. If it is not possible to determine the order in which in-
crowd market participants responded, the balance of the order shall
be apportioned equally among the remaining market participants
bidding (offering) at the same price and, if applicable, the book
market participant. If two or more bids (offers) represent the best
price, each of which is NOT a book market participant, priority is
afforded to the in-crowd market participants in accordance with the
allocation principles contained in CBOE Rule 6.45(a) or (b), which
generally provide that priority is afforded to such bids (offers) in
the sequence in which they are made or, if the bids were made at the
same time or in the event the sequence cannot be reasonably
determined, priority is apportioned equally. See existing CBOE Rules
6.45A(b) and 6.45B(b).
    \6\ The particular algorithm is determined on a class-by- class
basis and can be based on either price-time priority, pro-rata
priority or the Ultimate Match Algorithm (``UMA''). The UMA
allocation formula has a component based on the number of market
participants quoting at the best price (``Component A'') and a
component based on the size of market participant quotes. Depending
on the particular algorithm and class, additional priority overlays
pertaining to public customer orders, Market-Maker participation
entitlements and market turner may also apply. See CBOE Rule
6.45A(a) or 6.45B(a), as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to revise the priority levels so that, at
the same execution price: (i) Public customer orders in the electronic
book would continue to have first priority, with multiple public
customer orders prioritized based on time priority; (ii) in-crowd
market participants would have second priority, with multiple bids or
offers prioritized based on the allocation algorithm provided in Rule
6.45(A) or (B);\7\ and (iii) broker-dealer orders resting in the
electronic book and electronic quotes of Market-Makers would
collectively have third priority, with multiple bids or offers
prioritized based on the electronic allocation algorithm in effect for
the option class.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Allocation among the in-crowd market participants in this
manner is consistent with the existing CBOE Rule 6.45A(b) and
6.45B(b) allocation procedures that apply when there is NOT a book
market participant. See note 5, supra.
    \8\ If the UMA algorithm is in effect, the cumulative number of
broker-dealer orders in the electronic book at the best price are
deemed one ``market participant'' for purposes of calculating
Component A. See note 6, supra. In revising the priority algorithm
to provide that in-crowd market participants have priority over the
trading interests of both broker-dealer orders resting in the
electronic and electronic quotes of Market-Makers, the Exchange
notes that at least one other options exchange already has in place
rules that afford in-crowd participants priority over electronic
trading interests. See Rule 6.76(d) of NYSE Arca Inc. In addition,
this change in the priority algorithm will make the open outcry
priority rules for non-crossing transactions more consistent with
the Exchange's open outcry priority rules for crossing transactions,
which currently provide for in-crowd market participants to have
priority over the trading interests of both broker-dealer orders
resting in the electronic book and electronic quotes of Market-
Makers. See CBOE Rule 6.74, Crossing Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in order to transact proprietary orders \9\ on the
floor of the Exchange pursuant to Rule 6.45A(b) or 6.45B(b), members
must also ensure that they qualify for an exemption from section
11(a)(1) of the Act.\10\ Members relying on section 11(a)(1)(G) of the
Act \11\ and Rule 11a1-1(T) thereunder (commonly known as the ``G
exemption rule'') \12\ as an exemption must comply with the
requirements of that exemption before executing a proprietary order,
including the requirement to yield priority to any bid or offer at the
same price for the account of a person who is not, or is not associated
with, a member (a ``non-member''), irrespective of the size of any such
bid or offer or the time when entered. Because CBOE's electronic book
does not distinguish between member and non-member broker-dealer
orders, the revised priority provisions would further provide that
members relying on the G exemption rule must yield priority to any bid
(offer) at the same price of public customer orders and broker-dealer
orders (whether non-member or member) resting in the electronic book,
as well as any other bids and offers that would otherwise have priority
over such broker-dealer orders under Rule 6.45A(b) or 6.45B(b).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of CBOE Rule 6.45A(b) or 6.45B(b), a
``proprietary order'' will mean an order for a member's own account,
the account of an associated person, or an account with respect to
which it or an associated person thereof exercises investment
discretion.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(G).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.11a1-1(T).
    \13\ Thus, for example, a Floor Broker that is relying on the G
exemption rule must first yield priority to any same priced public
customer orders and broker-dealer orders resting in the electronic
book, as well as any in-crowd market participants that would
otherwise have priority over those broker-dealer orders, before
executing a proprietary order. In such a scenario, the Rule 6.45A(b)
or Rule 6.45B(b) priority sequence described above is modified so
that, at the same price, public customer orders resting in the book
would have first priority, then the in-crowd market participants (to
the extent each such market participant also qualifies for an
exemption from Section 11(a)(1) but is not relying on the G
exemption rule), then broker-dealer orders resting in the book, then
the Floor Broker's proprietary order (along with any other in-crowd
market participants also relying on the G exemption rule). To the
extent there may be any further remaining balance, same priced
electronic quotes of Market-Makers would have priority to trade
next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b) of the Act \14\ in general and furthers the objectives of
section 6(b)(5) of the Act \15\ in particular in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, serve to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for thirty days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \17\ thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange has given
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date on which
the Exchange filed the proposed rule change. See 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-66 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-66. 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 CBOE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-66 and
should be submitted on or before July 26, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-12940 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 39954-39956]
[DOCID:fr11jy08-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-256-000]

Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed J-2 Loop Project, Request for
Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Site Visit

July 3, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the J-2 Loop Project, involving
construction and operation of natural gas facilities by Algonquin Gas
Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The
EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to
determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will
be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will

close on August 2, 2008. Details on how to submit comments are provided
in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by an Algonquin representative about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project facilities. The
pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, Algonquin could
initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with Massachusetts
State law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' addresses a number
of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and
how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).
    With this notice, we \1\ are asking other Federal, State, and local
agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
Agencies that would like to request cooperating status should follow
the instructions for filing comments provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Algonquin seeks authorization to construct about 2.3 miles of 14-
inch-diameter pipeline and associated facilities within the cities of
Medford and Somerville, Massachusetts. The project would commence at an
existing meter station adjacent to the Mystic Valley Parkway in Medford
and travel in a general southeast direction within road rights-of-way
to its terminus at an interconnection with NSTAR Gas Company's (NSTAR)
system adjacent to the McGrath Highway/railroad track overpass in
Somerville. A meter station and pig \2\ launcher facility would be
constructed in Medford, at the existing meter station and a valve and
pig receiver would be constructed at the interconnect with NSTAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A pipeline ``pig'' is a device designed to internally clean
or inspect the pipeline. A pig launcher/receiver is an aboveground
facility where pigs are inserted or retrieved from the pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix A presents a detailed map identifying all facilities
associated with this project.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) at the
``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference Room at
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the ``Additional Information'' section at the end of this notice.
Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this
notice in the mail. Requests for detailed maps of the proposed
facilities should be made directly to Dominion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Algonquin would temporarily disturb about 36.8 acres to construct
the new pipeline and about 0.6 acres for aboveground facilities. During
operation of the project, Algonquin would affect about 0.33 acres for
pipeline maintenance and about 0.04 acres for aboveground facilities.
    The majority of the J-2 Loop Project would be constructed within
existing roadways, roadside shoulders, and paved parking areas.

The EA Process

    We are preparing this EA to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) which requires the Commission to take into
account the environmental impacts that could result from an action
whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and
address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is
referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to
focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By
this notice, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the
issues to be addressed in the EA. All comments received will be
considered during the preparation of the EA.
    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project under the following
general headings:
     Geology and Soils
     Cultural Resources
     Land Use and Visual Quality
     Air Quality and Noise
     Alternatives
     Reliability and Safety
    We note that the proposed pipeline would be within high-density
multi-family residential areas and would require special construction
procedures.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be addressed in the EA.
Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA
may be published for distribution and mailed to federal, state, and
local agencies; public interest groups; interested individuals;
affected landowners; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and
the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment
period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will
consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to
the Commission.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects of
the proposal, reasonable alternatives (including alternative locations
and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The
more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please
carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are
received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 1;
     Reference Docket No. CP08-256-000;
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before August 2, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments. See 18
Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on
the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the
link to ``Documents and Filings'' and ``eFiling.'' eFiling is a file
attachment process and requires that you prepare your submission in the
same manner as you would if filing on paper, and save it to a file on
your hard drive. New eFiling users must first create an account by
clicking on ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select
the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a
``Comment on Filing.'' In addition, there is a ``Quick Comment'' option
available, which is an easy method for interested persons to submit
text only comments on a project. The Quick-Comment User Guide can be
viewed at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/quick-comment-
guide.pdf. Quick Comment does not require a FERC eRegistration account;
however, you will be asked to provide a valid

e-mail address. All comments submitted under either eFiling or the
Quick Comment option are placed in the public record for the specified
docket or project number(s).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process.
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors.
Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the
Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the
Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all
other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If
you want to become an intervenor, you must file a motion to intervene
according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) (see appendix B). \4\ Only intervenors have
the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Site Visit

    On July 15, 2008, the Office of Energy Projects' (OEP) staff will
conduct a pre-certification site visit of the proposed J-2 Loop
Project. Representatives of Algonquin and Massachusetts Energy
Facilities Siting Board will accompany the OEP staff. We will tour the
proposed project area by automobile and on foot viewing Algonquin's
proposed pipeline route, route variations, and aboveground facilities
that are being considered for the proposed project.
    All interested parties may attend the site visit. Those planning to
attend must provide their own transportation. If you are interested in
attending the site visit, please meet us at 4:00 p.m. in the parking
lot of the Somerville High School, 81 Highland Avenue, Somerville, MA.
    For additional information, please contact the Commission's Office
of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372).

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. We
encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of
this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern. If you do not return the form included as Appendix C, you will
be removed from the Commission's environmental mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). Using the
``eLibrary'' link, select ``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu,
enter the selected date range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last
three digits (i.e., CP08-256), and follow the instructions. For
assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at 1-
866-208-3676, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission such as orders,
notices, and rule makings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, any public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15792 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 175 (Thursday, September 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54630-54631]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22753]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Regulation FD. OMB Control No. 3235-0536, SEC File No. 270-475.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Regulation FD (17 CFR 243.100 et seq.)--Other Disclosure Materials
requires public disclosure of material information from issuers of
publicly traded securities so that investors have current information
upon which to base investment decisions. The purpose of the regulation
is to require that: (1) When an issuer intentionally discloses material
information, to do so through public disclosure, not selective
disclosure; and (2) to make prompt public disclosure of material
information that was unintentionally selectively disclosed. Regulation
FD was adopted due to a concern that the practice of selective
disclosure leads to

a loss of investor confidence in the integrity of our capital markets.
All information is provided to the public for review. The information
required is filed on occasion and is mandatory. We estimate that
approximately 13,000 issuers make Regulation FD disclosures
approximately five times a year for a total of 58,000 submissions
annually, not including an estimated 7,000 issuers who file Form 8-K to
comply with Regulation FD. We estimate that it takes approximately 5
hours per response (58,000 responses x 5 hours) for a total burden of
290,000 hours annually. In addition, we estimate that 25% of the 5
hours (1.25 hours) is prepared by the filer for an annual reporting
burden of 72,500 hours (1.25 hours per response x 58,000 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: September 3, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-22753 Filed 9-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31129-31131]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0518; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00822-T;
Amendment 39-22046; AD 2022-10-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A320-214, -251N, and -271N airplanes. This AD
was prompted by reports that damaged seat rail covers were detected in
the forward and aft seat fixation area of some airplanes during initial
delivery. This AD requires a one-time detailed inspection of the
affected passenger seats and corrective actions if necessary, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 7, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 7,
2022.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by July 7, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this IBR material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2022-0518.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0518; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0518; Project Identifier MCAI-
2021-00822-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA,
International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0166, dated July 13, 2021 (EASA
AD 2021-0166) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-214, -251N, and -271N
airplanes.
    This AD was prompted by reports that damaged seat rail covers were
detected in the forward and aft seat fixation area of some airplanes
during initial delivery. The FAA is issuing this AD to

address deformation or compression of the seat rail covers caused by
improper transportation, handling or installation on the airplane. This
condition, if not addressed, could lead to seat track detachment,
possibly resulting in injury to passengers. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0166 specifies procedures for a detailed inspection of
the affected parts and corrective actions. Corrective actions include
replacement of the seat or the seat rail covers. This material is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI described above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining
that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or
develop on other products of these same type designs.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2021-0166 described previously, except for any differences identified
as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result,
EASA AD 2021-0166 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD
requires compliance with EASA AD 2021-0166 in its entirety through that
incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in
the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as
the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0166 does not mean
that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where
the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance
times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the
section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD
2021-0166. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-0166 for
compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0518 after this AD is
published.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    There are currently no domestic operators of these products.
Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the
forgoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with
this AD:

                  Estimated Costs for Required Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170....              $0             $170
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                      Labor cost                 Parts cost              Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat rail cover replacement........  1 work-hour x $85 per   Up to $160..................  Up to $245 (per rail
                                      hour = $85.                                           cover).
Seat replacement...................  3 work-hours x $85 per  Up to $21,600...............  Up to $21,855 (per
                                      hour = $255.                                          seat).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2022-10-08 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22046; Docket No. FAA-2022-0518;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00822-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 7, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A320-214, -251N, and -271N
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0166, dated July 13,
2021 (EASA AD 2021-0166).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that damaged seat rail covers
were detected in the forward and aft seat fixation area of some
airplanes during initial delivery. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address deformation or compression of the seat rail covers caused by
improper transportation, handling or installation on the airplane.
This condition, if not addressed, could lead to seat track
detachment, possibly resulting in injury to passengers.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2021-0166.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0166

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0166 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0166 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0166 specifies actions
if ``discrepancies are detected,'' for this AD a discrepancy is an
out-of-tolerance distance between the forward and aft attachment
screws or a damaged (deformed or compressed) seat rail cover.
    (4) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0166 allows deferral of
certain actions ``in accordance with the applicable instructions and
limitations of Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) item 25-20-
01A,'' for this AD use ``in accordance with the applicable
instructions and limitations of FAA MMEL item 25-21-01 or equivalent
instructions and limitations in the operator's existing FAA-approved
minimum equipment list (MEL).''

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0166
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0166,
dated July 13, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0166, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 6, 2022.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-10867 Filed 5-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64165-64169]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26746]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0277]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 21 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0277 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow theon-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

Instructions

    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docketnumbers
for this notice. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below for
further information.

Docket

    For access to the docket to read background documents or comments,
go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.

Privacy Act

    Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's Privacy
Act Statement for the FDMS published in theFederal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://www.edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 21 individuals listed
in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the
diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate
the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the
exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by the
statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Norman Billie

    Mr. Billie, age 52, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Billie understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Billie meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's License
(CDL) from Utah.

Jeffry L. Bromby

    Mr. Bromby, 45, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bromby understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bromby meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
California.

Glenn W. Burke

    Mr. Burke, 59, has had ITDM since approximately 2002. His
endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no
severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness,
requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired
cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months
and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Burke understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Burke meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

David P. Charest

    Mr. Charest, 53, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Charest understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Charest meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His

ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.

Matthew J. Cipolloni

    Mr. Cipolloni, 48, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cipolloni understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cipolloni meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.

Donald N. Ellis

    Mr. Ellis, 61, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ellis understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ellis meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.

Timothy J. Flynn

    Mr. Flynn, 33, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes since diagnosed in
2009. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Flynn understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Flynn meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Iowa.

Michael T. Heath

    Mr. Heath, 35, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Heath understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Heath meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A operator's license from
Georgia.

Edward L. Keith

    Mr. Keith, 55, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Keith understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Keith meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.

Thomas J. Kelley

    Mr. Kelley, 56, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kelley understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kelley meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.

Jackie L. Lane

    Mr. Lane, 53, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lane understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lane meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.

Michael J. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 40, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Miller understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Miller meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.

Jeremy R. Pendergrass

    Mr. Pendergrass, 23, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pendergrass understands

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

Cory J. Rickerl

    Mr. Rickerl, 28, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 4 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rickerl understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rickerl meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Arizona.

Phillip D. Ross

    Mr. Ross, 58, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ross understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ross meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class A CDL from Texas.

Dennis R. Scheel

    Mr. Scheel, 65, has had ITDM since 1985. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Scheel understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Scheel meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.

Michael K. Schulist

    Mr. Schulist, 44, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schulist understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schulist meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Michigan.

Andrew P. Shirk

    Mr. Shirk, 33, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Shirk understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Shirk meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class R operator's license from
Mississippi.

Jerry L. Smit

    Mr. Smit, 51, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Smit understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smit meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Charles R. Tomassi

    Mr. Tomassi, 57, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tomassi understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tomassi meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Randy J. Voss

    Mr. Voss, 55, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Voss understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Voss meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in

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

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

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

    Issued on: October 6, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-26746 Filed 10-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P