[Federal Register: May 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 30431-30433]
[DOCID:fr27my08-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57837; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-46]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Related To the Hybrid Agency Liaison

May 20, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 15, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``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 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 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)(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

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.14, Hybrid Agency Liaison
(``HAL''), so that the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis
to permit electronic exposure of HAL orders to all CBOE members to give
additional opportunities to provide the orders with the best price. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    In classes where HAL is activated, HAL automatically upon receipt
processes market and limit orders if: (i) The market orders or limit
orders are marketable against the Exchange's disseminated quotation
while that quotation is not at the national best bid or offer
(``NBBO''); (ii) the limit orders would improve the Exchange's
disseminated quotation and are marketable against quotations
disseminated by other exchanges participating in the Intermarket
Options Linkage (``Linkage''); and (iii) for Hybrid 3.0 classes, the
limit orders would improve the Exchange's disseminated quotation,
except when the disseminated quotation is represented by a manual
quote, in which case the limit order will automatically route to the
electronic book instead of being processed by HAL, and the manual quote
will be cancelled.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 6.14(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When these circumstances occur, orders that are received by HAL are
immediately upon receipt electronically exposed to all Market-Makers
appointed to the relevant option class, as well as all members acting
as agent for orders at the top of the Exchange's book (``Qualifying
Members'') in the relevant series.\6\ At the conclusion of the HAL
process:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The orders are exposed for a period determined by the
Exchange on a class-by-class basis, which period shall not exceed
1.5 seconds. If a Market-Maker or Qualifying Member (on behalf of
the order it is representing) commits to trade with any portion of
the order during the exposure period, then the exposure period will
end, and an allocation period will begin. The allocation period is
determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and, when
combined with the designated exposure period (as opposed to an
exposure period that is terminated early), shall not exceed a total
of 3 seconds. See Rule 6.14(b).

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

     The order will be filled in accordance with the allocation
algorithm in effect for the class pursuant to Rule 6.45A, Priority and
Allocation of Equity Option Trades on the CBOE Hybrid System, or 6.45B,
Priority and Allocation of Trades in Index Options and Options on ETFs
on the CBOE Hybrid System, subject to certain requirements. In
particular, there is no participation entitlement applicable to exposed
orders, and response sizes are limited to the size of the exposed order
for allocation purposes; or
     If no responses are received or if there remains an
unexecuted portion of a marketable order, then the remaining balance of
the order will be routed through Linkage.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If the remaining order balance is for the account of a
public customer and is marketable against another exchange that is a
participant in Linkage, then HAL will route a Principal Acting as
Agent Linkage Order (``P/A Order'') on behalf of the remaining order
balance through the Linkage, and any resulting execution of the P/A
Order will be allocated to that order. If the remaining order
balance is marketable against another exchange that is a participant
in Linkage but is not for the account of a public customer, then HAL
will route a Principal Linkage Order (``P Order'') on behalf of the
Remaining Order through the Linkage, and any resulting execution of
the P Order will be allocated to the remaining order. In either
situation above, if the Linkage order cannot be transmitted from the
Exchange because the price of the Linkage order (or a better price)
is no longer available on any market, then HAL will, pursuant to
normal order allocation processing, execute the remaining order
balance against the Exchange's existing quote (provided such
execution would not cause a trade-through) or, if the Exchange's
quote is inferior to the Exchange's best bid or offer at the time
the order was received by HAL (``Exchange Initial BBO''), against
the Market-Makers that constituted the Exchange Initial BBO at a
price equal to the Exchange Initial BBO. If the remaining order is
not marketable (either on CBOE or another exchange), it will be
entered into the Hybrid book for dissemination. See Rule
6.14(b)(i)--(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a marketable order is not executed via HAL, it is routed through
Linkage to a competing exchange(s) even though there may be other CBOE
members who would be willing to execute the order at the better price.
Additionally, when an order is sent through Linkage, the other exchange
charges an execution fee. The cost of sending the order through Linkage
can be substantial, particularly with respect to other options
exchanges that have adopted a maker-taker fee schedule.\8\ To retain as
much order flow as possible on CBOE and to help reduce costs associated
with the number of orders sent through Linkage,\9\ CBOE proposes to
allow itself the flexibility to determine on a class-by-class basis to
expose orders received by HAL to all members that have elected to
receive HAL messages (not just Market-Makers appointed to the relevant
option class and Qualifying Members), and to permit such members to
respond to HAL on a proprietary or agency basis. This would provide for
additional opportunities to provide orders with the best price on CBOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Several options exchanges have adopted a fee structure in
which firms receive a rebate for the execution of orders resting in
the limit order book (i.e., posting liquidity) and pay a fee for the
execution of orders that trade against liquidity resting on the
limit order book (i.e., taking liquidity). Taker fees currently
range up to $0.45 per contract and are charged without consideration
of the order origin category, including public customer orders. In
contrast, CBOE does not generally charge a fee for the execution of
public customer orders that are routed directly to our market. The
effective price paid by a customer purchasing an option can be
considerably higher on an exchange that charges a taker fee. For
example, a customer that enters a marketable limit order to buy 10
contracts for $0.10 would pay $100 on CBOE and $104.50 if executed
on an exchange that charges a $0.45 taker fee (an effective 4.5%
increase). Because orders cannot be executed at prices inferior to
the NBBO, members are effectively forced to pay taker fees when an
exchange with a taker fee structure is at the NBBO and the members'
orders are directly routed to such an exchange or indirectly routed
to such an exchange through Linkage (where the fees are passed
through).
    \9\ Outbound Linkage costs are incurred by CBOE and its members.
CBOE currently rebates DPM transaction fees generated from
transactions against customer orders that underlie outbound P/A and
P Orders (``CBOE Transactions''). In addition, when DPMs incur fees
to execute P/A or P Orders at other exchanges (``Away
Transactions''), those DPMs are credited an additional amount per
contract to offset such fees. CBOE also credits DPMs an additional
amount per contract on both CBOE Transactions and Away Transactions
to offset the Sales Value Fee (which offsets fees payable to the
Commission under Section 31 of the Act), the Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') per contract fee applicable to Market-Makers
and specialists set forth on the OCC Schedule of Fees, and an
estimated average clearing firm per contract fee. In the case of a P
Order, the Exchange also passes through the total amount of the
credits above to the member that originated the order underlying the
P Order. See Section 21 of the CBOE Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For such classes, each member that submits a response to trade with
an order during the exposure or allocation periods would be entitled to
receive an allocation of the order in accordance with the allocation
algorithm in effect for the option class pursuant to Rule 6.45A or
6.45B, subject to certain requirements. As with the existing HAL
allocation process, there would be no participation entitlement
applicable to exposed orders, and response sizes would be limited to
the size of the exposed order for allocation purposes. In addition, if
the applicable allocation algorithm in effect for the option class is
price-time or pro-rata, then any public customer priority overlay in
effect for a class would not be applicable. The Exchange believes this
condition is a reasonable modification designed to give market
participants a more balanced opportunity to participate in an
allocation. The Exchange also notes that, in accordance with the
existing provisions of Rules 6.45A and 6.45B, there is no requirement
that a public customer priority overlay be in effect if there is no
participation entitlement.
    Lastly, because all members would be permitted to respond on a
proprietary or agency basis, the HAL provision that normally prohibits
the dissemination of information regarding exposed orders to third
parties would not apply.\10\ The Exchange believes that permitting the
dissemination of this information by members to third parties will
assist in its efforts to provide additional opportunities for orders to
receive executions at the NBBO on CBOE and reduce costs by reducing the
number of Linkage orders sent to other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This prohibition only deals with disseminating information
to third parties after an order is exposed in HAL. See Rule 6.14.02.
The Exchange notes that members remain subject to the requirements
of Rule 4.18, Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Nonpublic
Information, and Rule 8.91, Limitations on Dealings of DPMs and
Affiliated Persons of DPMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular in that it is designed to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would
give additional opportunities to provide orders executions at the NBBO
on CBOE and reduce costs by reducing the number of Linkage orders sent
to other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 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 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 rule does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
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 \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission notes that the Exchange has satisfied the
five-day pre-filing notice requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Normally, a proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange believes that
the expansion of HAL to permit all members to respond in the manner
proposed will provide additional opportunities for orders to receive
executions at the NBBO on CBOE and reduce costs by reducing the number
of Linkage orders sent to other exchanges. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change is non-controversial, does not raise any new,
unique or substantive issues, and is essential for competitive purposes
and to promote a free and open market for the benefit of investors. For
these reasons, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change to be operative upon filing with the Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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-2008-46 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-2008-46. 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-2008-46 and should be
submitted on or before June 17, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-11703 Filed 5-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58297-58298]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC13-146-000.
    Applicants: Red Oak Power, LLC.
    Description: Red Oak Power, LLC's Section 203 Application for
Authorization of Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5125.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/13.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER12-2681-002.
    Applicants: ITC Holdings Corp.
    Description: Compliance filing of the ITC Midsouth Operating
Companies.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-948-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing and Comments in Support of the
September 13, 2013 MISO eTariff filing of Entergy Services, Inc. on
behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1686-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130916-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1875-001.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee, ISO New
England Inc.
    Description: CFTC Compliance Filing RE: Associate Persons to be
effective 11/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2337-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 09-13-2013 SA 2017 G540/G548 GIA Amendment to be
effective 9/7/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2377-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company
    Description: Price Index and Attachment C change to be effective 9/
13/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2378-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 09-13-2013 SA 2356 IP&L-IP&L GIA (J238) to be
effective 9/13/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2379-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2013-09-13 Attachment O Joint TO Filing to be
effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2380-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Revised OATT Schedules 4 & 9--Mid-C Index to be
effective 9/13/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2381-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Sectionalizing Switch Replacement Letter to be
effective 8/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130916-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2382-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Tri-County Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Joint Request of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. and Tri-
County Electric Cooperative, Inc., for Temporary, Limited Tariff
Waiver.
    Filed Date: 9/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130916-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2383-000.
    Applicants: Bangor Hydro Electric Company, ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Bangor Hydro Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of LSA with Black Bear HVGW, LLC to
be effective 8/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130916-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/7/13.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 16, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23036 Filed 9-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 477]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33234]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-634-000]

AltaGas Pomona Energy Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
AltaGas Pomona Energy Inc.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 19, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 30, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-33234 Filed 1-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7657-7658]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3263]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0324]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 11 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal vision requirement.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0324 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 11 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

John E. Chitty

    Mr. Chitty, age 60, has had retinal detachment in his right eye,
due to a traumatic injury sustained 48 years ago. The best corrected
visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted,
``Based on the vision exam, Mr. Chitty has sufficient vision to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Chitty reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years,
accumulating 550,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 15
years, accumulating 300,000 miles. He holds a Class A Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) from Florida. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV).

Roger L. Courson

    Mr. Courson, 58, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15 and in his
left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``It was and still is my professional opinion, that Mr. Courson
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Courson reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 200,000 miles and tractor-
trailer combinations for 17 years, accumulating 1.7 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last
3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Revis D. Durbin

    Mr. Durbin, 69, has had esotropia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted,
``It is my clinical impression that he has sufficient vision to perform
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Durbin
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 52 years, accumulating
260,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 41 years,
accumulating 2.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

James D. Evans

    Mr. Evans, 54, has had a prosthetic right eye for the past 30
years. The best corrected visual acuity in his left eye is 20/20.
Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``He has
sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Evans reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 32 years, accumulating 49,920
miles and tractor-trailer combinations

for 32 years, accumulating 25,600 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Maryland. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Lowell S. Johnson

    Mr. Johnson, 56, has had a prosthetic left eye since 1989. The best
corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an
examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``In summary it is my
expert opinion that Mr. Johnson not only passes but exceeds all
requirements for a federal exemption regarding this waiver.'' Mr.
Johnson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 38 years,
accumulating 760,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 38
years, accumulating 950,000. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Chet A. Keen

    Mr. Keen, 52, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his
left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``It is my professional opinion that Mr. Keen has demonstrated
visual ability to safely operate both private and commercial
vehicles.'' Mr. Keen reported that he has driven straight trucks for 11
years, accumulating 440,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Julian A. Mancha

    Mr. Mancha, 38, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye
since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in left eye is 20/20.
Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``In my
medical opinion, I certify that Mr. Julian Mancha has sufficient vision
to drive and operate commercial vehicles.'' Mr. Mancha reported that he
has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 9 years, accumulating
787,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes but one conviction for speeding
in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 10 mph.

Daniel I. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 41, has had a pituitary tumor in his left eye since
1982. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in
his left eye, from perception only. Following an examination in 2011,
his optometrist noted, ``In summary, Mr. Miller in my professional
opinion, has adequate vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Miller reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 120,000 miles and tractor-
trailer combinations for 8 years accumulating, 496,000 miles. He holds
a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Elijah Mitchell

    Mr. Mitchell, 42, has a macular scar in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained in 1994. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is count-finger vision and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``In my
medical opinion, the patient has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr.
Mitchell reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years,
accumulating 660,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 6
years, accumulating 750,000. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Gregory M. Quilling

    Mr. Quilling, 57, has a damaged retina in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained in 1983. The visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/20 and in his left eye, light perception. Following an
examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr.
Quilling has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Quilling reported that he has driven straight trucks for 39 years,
accumulating 1.3 million miles. He holds an Operator's license from
Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Donald L. Schaeffer

    Mr. Schaeffer, 59, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his
left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``Mr. Schaeffer can safely operate a motor vehicle
based on his field vision at this time.'' Mr. Schaeffer reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 39 years, accumulating 2.7 million
miles. He holds a Class E operator's license from Missouri. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

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. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business March 14, 2012. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: February 7, 2012.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-3263 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74510-74511]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0299; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-18]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of Colored Federal Airway Amber 6 (A-6); St. Mary's,
AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revokes Colored Federal airway Amber 6 (A-6) due
to the planned decommissioning of the St Marys, AK (SMA), Non-
Directional Beacon (NDB) in the vicinity of St. Mary's, AK.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, February 23, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with

prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the
route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of
air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS).

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket
No. FAA-2022-0299 in the Federal Register (87 FR 19410; April 4, 2022),
revoking Colored Federal airway A-6 due to the planned decommissioning
of the St Marys, AK, NDB. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting comments on the
proposal. No comments were received.
    Amber Federal airways are published in paragraph 6009(c) of FAA
Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15,
2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Colored
Federal airway listed in this document will be published subsequently
in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by revoking Colored Federal
airway A-6 due to the planned decommissioning of the St Marys, AK, NDB
in the vicinity of St. Mary's, AK. The amendment is described below.
    A-6: A-6 extends between the St Marys, AK, NDB and the North River,
AK, NDB. The airway is removed in its entirety.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this airspace action of revoking
Colored Federal airway A-6, due to the planned decommissioning of the
St Marys, AK, NDB, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with
FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-
6.5k, which categorically excludes from further environmental review
the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not
essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude,
or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this
action is not expected to result in any potentially significant
environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph
5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this
action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically
excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring
further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6009(c) Amber Federal Airways.

* * * * *

A-6 [Removed]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 30, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-26398 Filed 12-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, May 16, 2016 4:31 PM
To:
Self, Traci I<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shelton, Randy E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hill, John R<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: ICR Explanation of Potential Testing Problems-ArcelorMittal Monessen LLC.

Here are our answers with one question for you all. We will respond to the quench tower question once we receive your response to our question below.

Method 201A vs Method 5 on Pushing Emission Control System (PECS); uses a stationary baghouse
 Sample using Method201A throughout the entire pushing time period and do not turn off sampling when moving from door to door until the full volume required by the method (2 dscm) is collected. This also will reduce the number of ovens pushed during testing.
 We understand that this testing may result in data that is significantly different from data collected at facilities with PCMs or sheds, i.e., data collected during sampling that is started and stopped for the pushes. Because there are at least three facilities with PECS, we will be examine the data collected and if significantly different can create a subcategory for regulatory purposes.

Sampling Three Methods (315, 0010, 23) Simultaneously When Only Two Ports is Problematic (and Method 201A ports need six inches diameter openings)
 Methods 0010 and 23 can be combined, therefore only two methods need to be done simultaneously.
 Additional ports can be located at different levels, i.e., heights, relative to the current ports so that the same platforms can be used to sample simultaneously.
 The sample port for Method 201A for PM2.5 is only 4 inches wide; PM10 uses a 6-inch port but is not required by the Coke ICR.
 Installing additional ports is sometimes necessary to accommodate testing. See the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63, section 63.7.

Request To Sample Single Points For Quench Tower
 What is the vertical distance between baffles? If baffle positions vary over the length of the quench tower, provide a table listing all levels of baffles with their height from ground.

Coal Sampling Request To Take Composite Sample During Day Rather Than One During Each Run
 Approved.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Self, Traci I<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 3:45 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shelton, Randy E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hill, John R<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: ICR Explanation of Potential Testing Problems-ArcelorMittal Monessen LLC.

Dr. Jones,

Per  U.S. EPA ICR request dated April 4th 2016 attached is an explanation of potential testing problems  for ArcelorMittal Monessen LLC.

If you need additional information or have any questions please contact me. Thank you

Traci Self
Environmental Manager
ArcelorMittal Monessen LLC.