[Federal Register: December 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 242)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 76326-76329]
[DOCID:fr16de08-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 2007-27027]

Conaway Hip-Hugger; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr.
Brian J. Conaway, which, among other things, requested that the NHTSA
amend the language and definitions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child restraint systems,'' to apply the
standard to products that are not yet defined by the standard, such as
belt positioning devices. Alternatively, the petitioner asked the
agency to adopt a new definition, which would allow his product, the
Hip-Hugger, to be recognized and defined as a child restraint device
under FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA is denying the petition because it does not
see a safety need to apply a FMVSS to seat belt positioners and it does
not believe that a denial would hamper child restraint system
innovation or design. Furthermore, the agency is concerned that
applying FMVSS No. 213 to seat belt positioners may actually degrade
child occupant protection by promoting premature graduation to lap/
shoulder belts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Sean Doyle,
NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of the Chief
Counsel. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Both officials can be reached by mail at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. FMVSS No. 213

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child
restraint systems,'' has been in effect since January 1, 1970. It was
established to ``minimize the likelihood of death and injury to
children in vehicle crashes or sudden stops. * * *'' \1\ In 1979, the
standard was upgraded to include certain dynamic performance
requirements.\2\ The standard applies to ``child restraint systems''
and stipulates several definitional requirements for the various child
restraint systems used in motor vehicles. A ``child restraint system''
is defined in FMVSS No. 213 to be ``any device except Type I or Type II
seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to
restrain, seat, or position children. * * *'' \3\ Belt-positioning
seats, built-in child restraint systems, backless child restraint
systems, and car beds are among several of the applicable, defined
``child restraint systems'' covered by FMVSS No. 213. Seat belt
positioning devices are not included in the definition of ``child
restraint system'' in FMVSS No. 213, and are therefore not regulated by
this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 34 FR 1172, January 24, 1969. Originally the standard was
called ``Child Seating Systems'' and applied to motor vehicle
equipment for seating and restraining a child being transported in a
passenger car.
    \2\ 44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979.
    \3\ Standard No. 209 defines a Type I seat belt as ``a lap belt
for pelvic restraint,'' and a Type II seat belt as ``a combination
of pelvic and upper torso restraints.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Petition

    In a letter dated March 5, 2007, Mr. Brian Conaway petitioned the
NHTSA to amend the language and definitional requirements of FMVSS No.
213 to permit what he said were advancements in child restraint design
and to encourage new approaches to child protection. The petitioner
believed that the effectiveness of the regulation is restricted by
narrow definitions. The petitioner contended that there are many
innovative child safety vehicle devices ``which do not `* * * restrain,
seat, or position children * * *' in a manner consistent with any of
the current definitions,'' yet these devices are fully capable of
complying with Standard 213's dynamic performance requirements. The
petitioner further alleged that the ``process of system `definitions' *
* * limits innovation and advancements in child restraint design to
those approaches which already exist and fit a product type already
defined in the standard.'' Mr. Conaway went on to say, ``this results
in designing to a standard instead of designing to optimize a child's
comfort and safety in the event of a crash.'' In particular, Mr.
Conaway explained that the device which he developed, the Hip-Hugger,
or Conaway devise, is excluded from FMVSS No. 213, ``not based on the
crash data or protection it provides, but based on its inability to
meet the definition of any of the recognized alternative and already
existing approaches to child protection.'' The petitioner further
noted, ``this is in spite of the fact that it outperforms booster seats
when crash tested under FMVSS-213 dynamic test standards.'' As a
result, Mr. Conaway specifically requested that FMVSS No. 213 be
``changed to allow for products not yet defined to be included as long
as they meet the appropriate age, weight, and height related
performance and labeling standards.'' Alternatively, Mr. Conaway
petitioned the agency to adopt a new definition into FMVSS No. 213 that
would permit his device to be recognized as a child restraint system.
    Mr. Conaway's Hip Hugger device is a type of seat belt positioning
device. Mr. Conaway first wrote to NHTSA about the Hip Hugger in 2001,
asking whether it was a ``child restraint system'' under FMVSS No. 213.
The following is a description of the device, taken from the agency's
June 1, 2001, letter written in response to Mr. Conaway, in which we
explained that the device was not a child restraint system:

    You [Mr. Conaway] explained * * * that one part of the product
performs similarly to

a device called a ``locking clip'' used to secure some child
restraint systems. A locking clip is a bracket into which the
webbing of a Type II seat belt is threaded. A locking clip typically
prevents movement of the latchplate and the webbing of the lap and/
or shoulder belt. Your product is not used with child restraints,
but acts similarly to a locking clip by ``locking'' the lap belt
portion of the Type II belt over the child's lap. You would instruct
parents to lock the lap belt tight enough over the child such that
the child will not be able to slouch or scoot forward, even to bend
his or her knees at the vehicle seat cushion's edge. Attached to the
locking device is a plastic guide through which the shoulder belt
portion of a Type II belt is threaded. The guide positions the
shoulder belt ``so that it does not ride across the neck of the
child.'' * * *

C. Agency Past Assessment of Seat Belt Positioners

    NHTSA has considered regulating seat belt positioning devices on
several occasions, but has declined to do so. In a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) dated March 16, 1994 (59 FR 12225), the agency
requested comments on whether FMVSS No. 213 should be applied to belt
positioning devices, and if so, what requirements would be appropriate.
After considering comments on the issue, on July 6, 1995, the agency
published a document explaining that it decided against regulating belt
positioning devices in FMVSS No. 213 because it needed to ``better
assess the safety benefits of such rulemaking, and the feasibility of a
test procedure and practicability of performance requirements'' (60 FR
at 35137). On January 31, 1996, petition for rulemaking, the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) voiced concern that some belt positioning
devices had a tendency to interfere with proper lap and shoulder belt
fit and often introduced slack in the shoulder belt. The AAP contended
that since belt positioners are generally marketed as child protection
devices, they should be exposed to the same certification and testing
as child restraint systems, and should thus be regulated by FMVSS No.
213. The agency responded to the AAP petition by declining to undertake
rulemaking on FMVSS No. 213, for the reasons given below. Instead, the
agency proposed amending its consumer information regulations (49 CFR
Part 575) to require proper warnings and labeling of the products
(August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44164)),\4\ and requested comments on an
alternative or additional approach to establishing a minimum dynamic
performance requirement for belt positioners. NHTSA determined that it
was inappropriate for belt positioners to be regulated by FMVSS No. 213
because the agency believed that doing so could have a negative net
effect on child safety. The reasons for this conclusion were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to define ``seat belt
positioner'' as ``a device, other than a belt-positioning seat, that
is manufactured to alter the positioning of Type I and/or Type II
belt systems in motor vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A comparison study of dynamic sled tests with the Hybrid
II 3-year-old and 6-year-old dummies, restrained with either the lap/
shoulder belt and one of three different belt positioners, or with a
lap/shoulder belt only, indicated that belt positioning devices
generally reduced belt performance of the lap/shoulder belt system, and
led to increased head and chest injury criteria measurements, and head
and knee excursions measurements for the 3-year-old dummy.\5\ \6\
Testing with the 6-year-old also revealed the dummy's tendency to roll
out of the seat belt positioner and around the shoulder belt, not to
mention the possible introduction of belt slack, when a belt positioner
was used.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These tests were conducted by the agency in 1994 in an
attempt to better assess the benefits of a rulemaking for belt
positioning devices as the Agency looked to amend FMVSS No. 213. See
NHTSA Test Nos. 3101--3114.
    \6\ 64 FR 44166, August 13, 1999.
    \7\ ``Evaluation of Devices to Improve Shoulder Belt Fit,'' DOT
HS 808 383, Sullivan and Chambers, August 1994. The report is
available from the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A comparison study of tests for belt positioning devices
to FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests compiled between 1993 and 1998 for
both the 3-year-old and the 6-year-old child dummies positioned in
either convertible child restraints or belt-positioning booster seats
indicated that children are typically afforded greater levels of
protection when using either type of child restraint than when using a
lap/shoulder belt system with a belt positioner.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 64 FR 44168, August 13, 1999. FMVSS No. 213 compliance test
data from 1993 to 1998 can be found through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     It was unknown whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 213
could adequately assess belt positioners and discern between acceptable
and unacceptable performance. Also, abdominal loading could not be
evaluated because the applicable child dummies were not fitted with
abdominal sensors and no abdominal injury criteria existed.
     Child restraint systems offered additional benefits for
toddlers over seat belt positioners, including (1) A high back and side
support, which permit neck support and support in side impacts, (2) an
internal harness which diverts and distributes dynamic crash forces
away from vulnerable soft tissues and organs, and (3) a comfortable
fit, which discourages slouching and thus the repositioning of the lap
belt over a child's soft abdominal area.
     Some consumers may prematurely graduate their child from a
recommended age/size-appropriate child restraint such as a toddler seat
or a belt-positioning booster seat to the lap/shoulder belt with seat
belt positioner, thereby degrading the child's crash protection.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NHTSA recommends that children weighing over 40 lbs. be
restrained in a booster seat until they are tall enough so that they
can, without the aid of a booster seat: (1) Wear the shoulder belt
comfortably across their shoulder, and secure the lap belt across
their pelvis, and (2) bend their legs over the front of the seat
when their backs are against the vehicle seat back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a Federal Register notice published on March 23, 2004 (69 FR
13503), the agency terminated the rulemaking regarding the consumer
information requirement for seat belt positioners. The decision was
made because crash data did not quantify a safety need to regulate seat
belt positioners, and because NHTSA became concerned that the labeling
proposed in the NPRM could be misconstrued by some parents as an agency
recommendation that it would be acceptable to restrain 6-year-old
children in a vehicle belt system if a belt-positioner were used. Such
a conclusion would be contrary to the recommendation of the agency that
6-year-old children are best restrained when in a belt-positioning
booster seat. Also, further testing was being planned for belt guidance
devices pursuant to Anton's Law.\10\ Section 3(b)(2) of Anton's Law
directed the NHTSA to consider whether to establish injury performance
requirements for seat belt fit when used with booster seats and other
belt guidance devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pub. L. 107-318, 116 Stat. 2772.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to Section 3(b)(2) of Anton's Law, the agency analyzed
several studies exploring the extent to which booster seats differ in
how they affect the fit of a vehicle's belts on a child. The agency did
determine that various booster seats could differ in how belts fit but
was unable to conclude that the small differences translated into
associated differences in the dynamic performance of a belt system in a
crash. The agency also found that belt positioning devices improved
belt fit, but was unable to conclude how these devices would affect
belt performance when tested dynamically. The agency decided that
proposing performance criteria for safety belt fit for booster

seats or belt guidance devices was unwarranted.

D. Correspondence on the Hip-Hugger

    As noted above, the agency first corresponded with Mr. Brian J.
Conaway about the Hip-Hugger in 2001. At that time, Mr. Conaway
requested an interpretation of whether the Hip-Hugger, a small, plastic
device which attaches to Type II seat belts to restrain children
weighing between 50 and 100 pounds (lb), would be classified as a child
restraint system under FMVSS No. 213, and alternatively if it would be
considered a seat belt positioner. In an interpretation letter dated
June 1, 2001, the agency informed Mr. Conaway that his product did not
meet the definition of a child restraint system as set forth in FMVSS
No. 213.\11\ The agency explained that Mr. Conaway's device was
designed to position a seat belt, not to restrain, seat, or position
children. The agency noted that at that time, it did not have a
standard or regulation for seat belt positioners, but acknowledged that
the description of the Hip-Hugger did seem to conform to the definition
of a seat belt positioner proposed in the August 13, 1999 NPRM (``a
device, other than a belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to
alter the positioning of Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor
vehicles''). In 2006 and 2007, Mr. Conaway wrote follow-up letters to
NHTSA raising the same issues as those raised in his 2001 letters, to
which NHTSA replied on October 26, 2006, and March 12, 2007. In each of
the agency's responses, NHTSA maintained the position that the Hip-
Hugger did not meet the definition of a child restraint system set
forth in FMVSS No. 213 because the Hip-Hugger does not itself restrain,
seat, or position a child occupant in a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\  http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/
Conawaylockingmechanism.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis of Petition

    The Agency's opinion regarding Mr. Conaway's device has not changed
since its first correspondence with him in 2001; the petitioner has not
suggested that the design of this device has been altered. The Hip-
Hugger is a belt positioning device. The petitioner seeks to revise
FMVSS No. 213's definition of child restraint system to include devices
such as belt-positioning devices.
    We do not agree to this suggestion for several reasons. First,
there is no evidence of a real-world safety problem with seat belt
positioners. There is no safety need for an FMVSS to apply to seat belt
positioners or a need to incorporate seat belt positioners into FMVSS
No. 213. NHTSA has considered the safety need for the requested
rulemaking, agency resources and agency priorities, and has determined
that the petition should be denied.
    Second, we do not believe that a denial ``limits innovation and
advancements in child restraint design'' as the petitioner maintains.
The main effect of the denial is that petitioner may not refer to it as
a child restraint system or certify that it meets FMVSS No. 213. The
petitioner may continue to produce and market his device even when
FMVSS No. 213 does not apply to it. This denial does not hamper the
production of the device in any way. Seat belt positioners are
considered motor vehicle equipment and their manufacturers are thus
subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30119 and 30120 concerning the
recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects.
    Third, we are denying the petition because the agency also remains
concerned, as discussed in the August 13, 1999 NPRM, that FMVSS No. 213
is not an appropriate standard for the devices. Including seat belt
positioners in FMVSS No. 213 could unintentionally encourage premature
graduation to lap/shoulder belts with belt positioners, which could
degrade a child's safety by inducing injuries, such as abdominal
injuries, caused by submarining.\12\ A recent study of abdominal
injuries conducted by Partners for Child Passenger Safety showed that
children aged four to eight years whose restraint use was suboptimal,
were more than three times more likely to sustain an abdominal injury
than optimally restrained children.\13\ Additionally, since FMVSS No.
213 does not currently have abdominal injury limits, as none of the
child test dummies have an abdominal insert capable of measuring injury
levels, nor has an abdominal injury criterion been established for any
of the child crash test dummies utilized in FMVSS No. 213, FMVSS No.
213 might not adequately distinguish ``acceptable'' performers from
``unacceptable'' ones, and thus a certification to the standard could
be meaningless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Submarining occurs when the pelvis becomes unrestrained by
the lap belt portion of a safety belt assembly and then slides under
the lap belt in a frontal impact. As a result, the belt is free to
enter the abdominal cavity and cause injury to the unprotected
internal organs and lumbar spine.
    \13\ Annals of Surgery, January 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April 2005, the Agency conducted dynamic testing in accordance
with FMVSS No. 213 using the Hybrid III 6-year-old and 10-year-old
dummies in booster seats, belt positioning devices, and vehicle lap/
shoulder belts as part of the preparation for the August 31, 2005 NPRM
(70 FR 51731) to incorporate the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy into
FMVSS No. 213. The results substantiated the agency's past concerns
with incorporating belt positioners into the current standard. On
average, this testing produced head and chest readings for both dummies
that were as high or higher when belt positioning devices were used
compared to when only a lap/shoulder belt or a belt positioning booster
was used.\14\ \15\ Therefore, this data suggests that child belt
positioning devices, which do not meet the standard's definitional
requirements, do not generally perform better than other devices that
do meet the standard's definitional requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Associated sled test data can be found along with this
petition response in Docket  2007-27027.
    \15\ In accords with that suggested in the August 31, 2005 NPRM,
the Hybrid III-10C dummy was positioned in both an upright seating
posture and a slouched posture to determine if posture has an effect
on the performance of belts and belt positioning devices. This dummy
has yet to be adopted into FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to Mr. Conaway's assertion that the definitions detailed
in FMVSS No. 213 stifle child safety benefits, the current Standard has
proven to be very effective. Real world crash data have shown that
current child restraints, as defined by FMVSS No. 213, reduce the
likelihood of fatalities in passenger car crashes by 71% for infants
(less than one-year-old) and 54% for toddlers (one-to four-years-old).
For infants and toddlers in light trucks, the corresponding reductions
are 58% and 59%, respectively.\16\ Also, belt-positioning booster seats
lower the risk of injury to children aged four through seven years by
59 percent compared to the use of vehicle seat belts alone.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 2005 Traffic Safety Facts, NHTSA.
    \17\ Journal of American Medical Association, June 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    The agency has decided to deny Mr. Conaway's petition for
rulemaking. For the reasons listed herein, the agency disagrees that
the definitions in FMVSS No. 213 are too restrictive and therefore sees
no reason to alter the definitional requirements at this time.
Furthermore, because the agency does not believe that belt positioners
offer the same level of occupant protection as age-appropriate child
restraint systems, the agency is also denying Mr. Conaway's request to
incorporate a new definition for belt positioning devices into FMVSS
No. 213.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.

    Issued on: December 11, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-29728 Filed 12-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself and my wife, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. We all know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to review and comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about personal vaporizers or "e-cigarettes" as an alternative to traditional cigarettes and other burning tobacco products. Quite simply, as a cigarette and cigar smoker for most of my adult life, I firmly believe that they have saved my life. I would be happy to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account.

The FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame, and the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore respectfully ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 164 (Friday, August 27, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48088-48090]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0674; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-14]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment Class D and Class E Airspace; Ardmore, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class D and Class E airspace
at Ardmore, OK. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of
airspace reviews due to the decommissioning of the Arbuckle non-
directional beacon (NDB). The geographic coordinates of the airport
would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0674/Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-14, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support

Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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
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 would amend the Class D airspace, Class E airspace area
designated as an extension to Class D airspace, and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ardmore Municipal
Airport, Ardmore, OK, and the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Ardmore Downtown Executive Airport,
Ardmore, OK, to support instrument flight rule operations at these
airports.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0674/
Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-14.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:
    Amending the Class D airspace to within a 4.3-mile (increased from
a 4.2-mile) radius of Ardmore Municipal Airport, Ardmore, OK; updating
the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database; and replacing the outdated term ``Airport/
Facility Directory'' with ``Chart Supplement'';
    Amending the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to
Class D airspace at Ardmore Municipal Airport within 1.4 (increased
from 1.3) miles each side of the Ardmore VORTAC 050[deg] (previously
056[deg]) radial extending from the 4.3-mile (increased from 4.2-mile)
radius of airport to 7.4 (decreased from 8.4) miles southwest of
airport; updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database; and replacing the outdated term
``Airport/Facility Directory'' with ``Chart Supplement'';
    And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Ardmore Municipal Airport by adding an extension
within 1.5 miles each side of the Ardmore VORTAC 050[deg] radial
extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 8.4 miles
southwest of the airport; within 1.1 miles each side of the 315[deg]
bearing from the airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the
airport to 7 (increased from 6.9) miles northwest of the airport;
updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database; and removing the extension northwest of
the Ardmore VORTAC as it is no longer required.
    These actions are the result of airspace reviews caused by the
decommissioning of the Arbuckle NDB which provided guidance to
instrument procedures at these airports.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E,
dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    FAA Order 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, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
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, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F,

``Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures'' prior to any FAA
final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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.

71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW OK D Ardmore, OK [Amended]

Ardmore Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 34[deg]18'14'' N, long. 97[deg]01'14'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,300 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Ardmore Municipal
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D
or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ASW OK E4 Ardmore, OK [Amended]

Ardmore Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 34[deg]18'14'' N, long. 97[deg]01'14'' W)
Ardmore VORTAC
    (Lat. 34[deg]12'42'' N, long. 97[deg]10'06'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.4 miles
each side of the Ardmore VORTAC 050[deg] radial extending from the
4.3-mile radius of Ardmore Municipal Airport to 7.4 miles southwest
of the airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 315[deg] bearing
from Ardmore Municipal Airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius of
the airport to 5.3 miles northwest of the airport. This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Ardmore, OK [Amended]

Ardmore Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 34[deg]18'14'' N, long. 97[deg]01'14'' W)
Ardmore VORTAC
    (Lat. 34[deg]12'42'' N, long. 97[deg]10'06'' W)
Ardmore Downtown Executive Airport, OK
    (Lat. 34[deg]08'49'' N, long. 97[deg]07'22'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the 700 feet above the
surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Ardmore Municipal Airport, and
within 1.5 miles each side of the Ardmore VORTAC 050[deg] radial
extending from the 6.8-mile radius of Ardmore Municipal Airport to
8.4 miles southwest of the airport, and within 1.1 miles each side
of the 315[deg] bearing from the Ardmore Municipal Airport extending
from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northwest of the
airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Ardmore Downtown Executive
Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 23, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-18360 Filed 8-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86432-86436]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27260]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99103; File No. SR-BX-2023-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Monthly
Options Series

December 7, 2023.
    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 November 29, 2023, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Rules at Options 4A (Options
Index Rules) to adopt Monthly Options Series.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, 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, 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 Options 4A (Options Index Rules) to
accommodate the listing of option series that would expire at the close
of business on the last business day of a calendar month (``Monthly
Options Series'').\3\ Of note, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'') will
separately file a rule change to adopt a Monthly Options Series for
ETFs. BX's Options 4 rules, which govern the ability to transact
options on ETFs, incorporate by reference ISE's Options 4 rules. This
rule change proposes to amend BX's index options rules to adopt a
Monthly Options Series program. Pursuant to proposed Options 4A,
Section 12(h)(2)(i), the Exchange may list Monthly Options Series for
up to five currently listed option classes that are either index
options or options on ETFs.\4\ In addition, the Exchange may also list
Monthly Options Series on any options classes that are selected by
other securities exchanges that employ a similar program under their
respective rules.\5\ The Exchange may list 12 expirations for Monthly
Options Series. Monthly Options Series need not be for consecutive
months; however, the expiration date of a nonconsecutive expiration may
not be beyond what would be considered the last expiration date if the
maximum number of expirations were listed consecutively.\6\ Other
expirations in the same class are not counted as part of the maximum
numbers of Monthly Options Series expirations for a class.\7\ Monthly
Options Series will be P.M.-settled.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange proposes to define a ``Monthly Options Series''
in Options 4A, Section 2(l) to mean, for the purposes of Options 4A,
a series in an options class that is approved for listing and
trading on the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on
any business day and that expires at the close of business on the
last business day of a calendar month. The Exchange proposes to re-
letter the subsequent definitions in Options 4A, Section 2.
    \4\ As provided in proposed Options 4A, Section 12(h)(2)(i), the
Exchange may list Monthly Options Series for up to five currently
listed option classes that are either index options or options on
ETFs; the five Monthly Options Series include both index options and
options on ETFs.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98915 (November 13,
2023), 88 FR 80356 (November 17, 2023) (SR-Cboe-2023-049) (Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Monthly Options Series)
(``Cboe Monthly Approval Order'').
    \6\ The Exchange notes this provision considers consecutive
monthly listings. In other words, as other expirations (such as
Quarterly Options Series) are not counted as part of the maximum,
those expirations would not be considered when considering when the
last expiration date would be if the maximum number were listed
consecutively. For example, if it is January 2024 and the Exchange
lists Quarterly Options Series in class ABC with expirations in
March, June, September, December, and the following March, the
Exchange could also list Monthly Options Series in class ABC with
expirations in January, February, April, May, July, August, October,
and November 2024 and January and February of 2025. This is because,
if Quarterly Options Series, for example, were counted, the Exchange
would otherwise never be able to list the maximum number of Monthly
Options Series. This is consistent with the listing provisions for
Quarterly Options Series, which permit calendar quarter expirations.
The need to list series with the same expiration in the current
calendar year and the following calendar year (whether Monthly or
Quarterly expiration) is to allow market participants to execute
one-year strategies pursuant to which they may roll their exposures
in the longer-dated options (e.g. January 2025) prior to the
expiration of the nearer-dated option (e.g., January 2024).
    \7\ See proposed Options 4A, Section 12(h)(2)(ii).
    \8\ See proposed Options 4A, Section 12(h)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The strike price of each Monthly Options Series will be fixed at a
price per share, with at least two, but no more than five, strike
prices above and at least two, but no more than five, strike prices
below the value of the underlying index or price of the underlying
security at about the time that a Monthly Options Series is opened for
trading on the Exchange. The Exchange will list strike prices for
Monthly Options Series that are reasonably related to the current price
of the underlying security or current index value of the underlying
index to which such series relates at about the time such series of
options is first opened for trading on the Exchange. The term
``reasonably related to the current price of the underlying security or
index value of the underlying index'' means that the exercise price is
within 30% of the current underlying security price or index value.\9\
Additional Monthly Options Series of the same class may be

open for trading on the Exchange when the Exchange deems it necessary
to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand, or when the
market price of the underlying security moves substantially from the
initial exercise price or prices. To the extent that any additional
strike prices are listed by the Exchange, such additional strike prices
will be within 30% above or below the closing price of the underlying
index or security on the preceding day. The Exchange may also open
additional strike prices of Monthly Options Series that are more than
30% above or below the current price of the underlying security,
provided that demonstrated customer interest exists for such series, as
expressed by institutional, corporate, or individual customers or their
brokers. Market-Makers trading for their own account will not be
considered when determining customer interest under this provision. The
opening of the new Monthly Options Series will not affect the series of
options of the same class previously opened.\10\ The interval between
strike prices on Monthly Options Series will be the same as the
interval for strike prices for series in that same options class that
expire in accordance with the normal monthly expiration cycle.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Options 4A, Section 12(h)(2)(iv). The Exchange
notes this proposed provision is consistent with the initial series
provision for the Quarterly Options Series program in Options 4A,
Section 12(g).
    \10\ See proposed Options 4A, Section 12(h)(2)(v).
    \11\ See proposed Options 4A, Section 12(h)(2)(vi) (permissible
strike prices for index options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By definition, Monthly Options Series can never expire in the same
week as a standard expiration series (which expire on the third Friday
of a month) in the same class expires. The same, however, is not the
case with regards to Short Term Option Series \12\ or Quarterly Options
Series. Therefore, to avoid any confusion in the marketplace, the
Exchange proposes to amend Options 4A, Section 12(h)(2)(ii) to provide
the Exchange will not list a Short Term Option Series in a class on a
date on which a Monthly Options Series or Quarterly Options Series
expires.\13\ Similarly, proposed Options 4A, Section 12(b)(5)(b)
provide that no Monthly Options Series may expire on a date that
coincides with an expiration date of a Quarterly Options Series in the
same index. In other words, the Exchange will not list a Short Term
Option Series on an index if a Monthly Options Series on that index
were to expire on the same date, nor will the Exchange list a Monthly
Options Series on an index if a Quarterly Options Series on that index
were to expire on the same date to prevent the listing of series with
concurrent expirations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The proposed rule change clarifies in Options 4A, Section
12(a)(3) that index options have expiration months and weeks, which
expirations may occur in consecutive weeks as specified in Options
3, Section 4A(h). This is merely a clarification, as Options 3,
Section 4A(h) currently permits weekly expirations.
    \13\ The Exchange also proposes to make non-substantive changes
to Options 4A, Section 12(h)(1) and Options 4A, Section 12(h)(1)(ii)
to reference standard options series and change current references
to ``monthly options series'' to ``standard expiration options
series'' (i.e., series that expire on the third Friday of a month),
to eliminate potential confusion. The current references to
``monthly options series'' are intended to refer to those series
that expire on the third Friday of a month, which are generally
referred to in the industry as standard expirations.
    \14\ The Exchange notes this would not prevent the Exchange from
listing a P.M.-settled Monthly Options Series on an index with the
same expiration date as an A.M.-settled Short Term Option Series on
the same index, both of which may expire on a Friday. In other
words, the Exchange may list a P.M-settled Monthly Options Series on
an index concurrent with an A.M.-settled Short Term Option Series on
that index and both of which expire on a Friday. The Exchange
believes this concurrent listing would provide investors with yet
another hedging mechanism and is reasonable given these series would
not be identical (unlike if they were both P.M-settled).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Monthly Options Series added pursuant to proposed
Options 4A, Section 12(h)(2)(i) through (vi), the Exchange will, on a
monthly basis, review series that are outside a range of five strikes
above and five strikes below the current price of the underlying index
or security, and delist series with no open interest in both the put
and the call series having a: (i) strike higher than the highest strike
price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given
expiration month; and (ii) strike lower than the lowest strike price
with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration
month pursuant to Options 4A, Section 12(h)(2)(vii)(A). Notwithstanding
this delisting policy, customer requests to add strikes and/or maintain
strikes in Monthly Options Series in series eligible for delisting will
be granted. In connection with this delisting policy, if the Exchange
identifies series for delisting, the Exchange will notify other options
exchanges with similar delisting policies regarding eligible series for
delisting and will work with such other exchanges to develop a uniform
list of series to be delisted, so as to ensure uniform series delisting
of multiply listed Monthly Options Series.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Options 4A, Section 12(h)(2)(vii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that Monthly Options Series will provide
investors with another flexible and valuable tool to manage risk
exposure, minimize capital outlays, and be more responsive to the
timing of events affecting the securities that underlie option
contracts. The Exchange believes limiting Monthly Options Series to
five classes will ensure the addition of these new series will have a
negligible impact on the Exchange's and the Options Price Reporting
Authority's (``OPRA's'') quoting capacity. The Exchange represents it
has the necessary systems capacity to support new options series that
will result from the introduction of Monthly Options Series.
    The Exchange notes that Options 4A, Section 6, Position Limits for
Broad-Based Index Options, and Options 4A, Section 7, Position Limits
for Industry and Micro-Narrow Based Index Options, will apply to
Monthly Options Series. In Options 4A, Section 6(c) and Options 4A,
Section 7(c), Monthly Options Series will be aggregated with positions
in options contracts on the same underlying security or index.\16\ This
is consistent with how position (and exercise) limits are currently
imposed on series with other expirations (Short Term Option Series and
Quarterly Options Series). To that end, the Exchange proposes to make
this clear by adding a sentence to Options 4A, Sections 6(c) and 7(c)
that provides that ``Positions in Short Term Options Series, Monthly
Options Series and Quarterly Options Series shall be aggregated with
positions in options contracts of the same index.'' \17\ Therefore,
positions in options within class of index, regardless of their
expirations, would continue to be subject to existing position (and
exercise) limits. The Exchange believes this will address potential
manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Pursuant to Options 4A, Section 10, exercise limits for
index option contracts shall be equivalent to the position limits
prescribed for options contracts with the nearest expiration date in
Options 4A, Section 6 or Section 7.
    \17\ This additional rule text will further clarify the current
rule text for the existing Short Term Option Series and Quarterly
Options Series programs in Options 4A, Section 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also represents its current surveillance programs will
apply to Monthly Options Series and will properly monitor trading in
the proposed Monthly Options Series. The Exchange currently lists
Quarterly Options Series in certain ETF classes pursuant to Options 4,
Section 5, which expire at the close of business at the end of four
calendar months (i.e., the end of each calendar quarter), and has not
experienced any market disruptions nor issues with capacity. The
Exchange's surveillance programs currently in place to support and
properly monitor trading in these Quarterly Options Series, as well as
Short Term Option Series and standard expiration series, will apply to
the proposed Monthly Options Series. The Exchange believes its
surveillances

continue to be designed to deter and detect violations of its Rules,
including position and exercise limits and possible manipulative
behavior, and these surveillances will apply to Monthly Options Series
that the Exchange determines to list for trading. Ultimately, the
Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change raises any unique
regulatory concerns because existing safeguards--such as position and
exercise limits (and the aggregation of options overlying the same
index) and reporting requirements--would continue to apply.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\18\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \19\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in 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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \20\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the introduction of Monthly
Options Series will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system by expanding
hedging tools available to market participants. The Exchange believes
the proposed monthly expirations will allow market participants to
transact in the index options listed pursuant to the proposed rule
change based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their
investment and hedging needs more effectively. Further, the Exchange
believes the availability of Monthly Options Series would protect
investors and the public interest by providing investors with more
flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions in
these options, thus allowing them to better manage their risk exposure.
The Exchange believes the Quarterly Options Series Program has been
successful to date and the proposed Monthly Options Series program
simply expands the ability of investors to hedge risk against market
movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur
at months' ends in the same way the Quarterly Options Series Program
has expanded the landscape of hedging for quarter-end news. Monthly
Options Series will also complement Short Term Option Series, which
allow investors to hedge risk against events that occur throughout a
month. The Exchange believes the availability of additional expirations
should create greater trading and hedging opportunities for investors,
as well as provide investors with the ability to tailor their
investment objectives more effectively.
    The Exchange notes the proposed terms of Monthly Options Series,
including the limitation to five index option classes, are
substantively the same as the current terms of Quarterly Options Series
for ETF classes.\21\ Quarterly Options Series expire on the last
business day of a calendar quarter, which is the last business day of
every third month. The proposed Monthly Options Series would fill the
gaps between Quarterly Options Series expirations by permitting series
to expire on the last business day of every month, rather than every
third month. The proposed Monthly Options Series may be listed in
accordance with the same terms as Quarterly Options Series, including
permissible strikes. As is the case with Quarterly Options Series, no
Short Term Option Series may expire on the same day as a Monthly
Options Series. Similarly, as proposed, no Monthly Options Series may
expire on the same day as a Quarterly Options Series. The Exchange
believes preventing listing series with concurrent expirations in a
class will eliminate potential investors confusion and thus protect
investors and the public interest. Given that the Exchange currently
lists Quarterly Options Series in certain ETF classes pursuant to
Options 4, Section 5, which expire at the close of business at the end
of four calendar months (i.e., the end of each calendar quarter), the
Exchange currently lists are essentially Monthly Options Series that
can expire at the end of only certain calendar months, the Exchange
believes it is reasonable to list Monthly Options Series in accordance
with the same terms, as it will promote just and equitable principles
of trade. The Exchange believes limiting Monthly Options Series to five
classes will ensure the addition of these new series will have a
negligible impact on the Exchange's and OPRA's quoting capacity. The
Exchange represents it has the necessary systems capacity to support
new options series that will result from the introduction of Monthly
Options Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Options 4, Section 5. As noted herein, ISE will file a
rule change to amend Options 4, Section 5 and BX's Options 4 rules
are incorporated by reference to ISE's Options 4 rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes the proposed rule change regarding
the treatment of Monthly Options Series with respect to determining
compliance with position and exercise limits is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and
equitable principles of trade. Monthly Options Series will be
aggregated with options overlying the same index for purposes of
compliance with position (and exercise) limits, which is consistent
with how position (and exercise) limits are currently imposed on series
with other expirations (Short Term Option Series, and Quarterly Options
Series).\22\ Therefore, options positions within index option classes
for which Monthly Options Series are listed, regardless of their
expirations, would continue to be subject to existing position (and
exercise) limits. The Exchange believes this will address potential
manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of
options. The Exchange also represents its current surveillance programs
will apply to Monthly Options Series and will properly monitor trading
in the proposed Monthly Options Series. The Exchange currently trades
Quarterly Options Series in certain index classes, which expire at the
close of business at the end of four calendar months (i.e., the end of
each calendar quarter), and has not experienced any market disruptions
nor issues with capacity. The Exchange's surveillance programs
currently in place to support and properly monitor trading in these
Quarterly Options Series, as well as Short Term Option Series and
standard expiration series, will apply to the

proposed Monthly Options Series. The Exchange believes its
surveillances continue to be designed to deter and detect violations of
its Rules, including position and exercise limits and possible
manipulative behavior, and these surveillances will apply to Monthly
Options Series that the Exchange determines to list for trading.
Ultimately, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change
raises any unique regulatory concerns because existing safeguards--such
as position and exercise limits (and the aggregation of options
overlying the same index) and reporting requirements--would continue to
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Cboe Monthly Approval Order; see also Options 4A,
Section 6 regarding position limits for broad-based index options)
and Options 4A, Section 7, Position Limits for Industry and Micro-
Narrow Based Index Options. Pursuant to Options 4A, Section 10,
exercise limits for index option contracts shall be equivalent to
the position limits prescribed for options contracts with the
nearest expiration date in Options 4A, Section 6 or Section 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange does not believe
the proposed rule change to list Monthly Options Series will impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as any Monthly Options
Series the Exchange lists for trading will be available in the same
manner for all market participants who wish to trade such options. The
Exchange notes the proposed terms of Monthly Options Series, including
the limitation to list up to five options classes that are either index
options or options on ETFs, are substantively the same as the current
terms of Quarterly Options Series.\23\ Quarterly Options Series expire
on the last business day of a calendar quarter, which is the last
business day of every third month, making the concept of Monthly
Options Series in a limited number of index options not novel. The
proposed Monthly Options Series will fill the gaps between Quarterly
Options Series expirations by permitting series to expire on the last
business day of every month, rather than every third month. The
proposed Monthly Options Series may be listed in accordance with the
same terms as Quarterly Options Series, including permissible
strikes.\24\ Monthly Options Series will trade on the Exchange in the
same manner as other options in the same class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See proposed Options 4A, Section 12(h)(2)(i).
    \24\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change to list
Monthly Options Series will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act, as nothing prevents other options exchanges from
proposing similar rules.\25\ As discussed above, the proposed rule
change would permit listing Monthly Options Series in up to five
options classes that are either index options or options on ETFs, as
well as any other classes that other exchanges may list under similar
programs. To the extent that the availability of Monthly Options Series
makes the Exchange a more attractive marketplace to market participants
at other exchanges, market participants are free to elect to become
market participants on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Cboe Monthly Approval Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any
burden on, or otherwise promote, competition. Similar to Short Term
Option Series and Quarterly Options Series, the Exchange believes the
introduction of Monthly Options Series will not impose an undue burden
on competition. The Exchange believes that it will, among other things,
expand hedging tools available to market participants. The Exchange
believes Monthly Options Series will allow market participants to
purchase options based on their timing as needed and allow them to
tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change regarding
aggregation of positions for purposes of determining compliance with
position (and exercise) limits will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act, because it will apply in the same manner to all
market participants. The Exchange proposes to apply position (and
exercise) limits to Monthly Options Series in the same manner it
applies position limits to series with other expirations (Short Term
Option Series and Quarterly Options Series). Therefore, positions in
options in a class of index options, regardless of their expirations,
would continue to be subject to existing position (and exercise)
limits. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe this proposed rule
change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act,
because it will address potential manipulative schemes and adverse
market impacts surrounding the use of options.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\27\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change 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, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \28\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of
Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \30\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \31\ 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 so
that the Exchange may list Monthly Options Series immediately, which
the Exchange believes will benefit investors by promoting competition
in Monthly Options Series. The Exchange notes that its proposal is
substantively identical to the proposal submitted by Cboe Exchange,
Inc. for its Monthly Options Series program.\32\ The Commission
believes that the proposed rule change presents no novel issues and
that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and

designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \32\ See Cboe Monthly Approval Order, supra note 5.
    \33\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-BX-2023-032 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-BX-2023-032. 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 website (https://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 website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-BX-2023-032 and should be
submitted on or before January 3, 2024.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27260 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Posted 12/23/02

9:32 am

	           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

             OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                  WASHINGTON, D.C.

_______________________________

2002/2003 Hong Kong Fifth-Freedom All-Cargo Frequency Proceeding

Docket OST-2002-14049

________________________________

								Served:  December 23, 2002

EXTENSION OF PROCEDURAL DATES

By Order 2002-12-11, the Department instituted the 2002/2003 Hong Kong
Fifth-Freedom All-Cargo Frequency Proceeding, Docket OST-2002-14049, and
established a procedural schedule for the proceeding.  Under the
established procedural schedule Direct Exhibits are due January 7, 2003;
Rebuttal Exhibits, January 24, 2003; and Briefs, February 7, 2003.

By Joint Motion, filed December 18, 2002, six of the seven applicants to
the proceeding request (and state expressly that the seventh applicant
does not oppose) the amendment of the procedural timetable as follows:
Direct Exhibits, January 28, 2003; Rebuttal Exhibits, February 14, 2003;
and Briefs, February 28, 2003.  The Joint Movants state that the brief
extension is necessary to enable them to prepare their exhibits and to
develop an adequate evidentiary record, especially given the holiday
season, and that the short extension should not affect the
Department’s ability to make a timely decision awarding the
frequencies.

We will grant the motion.  In the circumstances presented, we find that
the Joint Movants have presented adequate justification for their
request and that no applicant’s interests will be prejudiced by a
grant.

Accordingly, Direct Exhibits in the above-captioned proceeding shall be
due January 28, 2003; Rebuttal Exhibits, February 14, 2003; and Briefs,
February 28, 2003.

We will serve this Notice on all parties to this proceeding by email or
facsimile and will authorize the parties to serve their responses by
facsimile or email.

By:

						SUSAN MCDERMOTT

				Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation

   and International Affairs

(SEAL)

Dated:  December 23, 2002

An electronic version of this notice is available on the World Wide Web
at

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

 The Joint Motion was signed by counsel for Polar Air Cargo, Inc.,
Federal Express Corporation, Evergreen International Airlines, Inc.,
Northwest Airlines, Inc., Atlas Air, Inc., and Kalitta Air, Inc.   The
Joint Applicants state that they are authorized to state that UPS does
not oppose the motion.

 Given that all the applicants in this proceeding have already
registered support for, or non-opposition to, the Joint Motion, we are
acting on the Joint Motion without awaiting completion of the answer
period.


[Federal Register: October 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 209)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61297-61298]
[DOCID:fr30oc07-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2005-22491; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-019]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Williamsport, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace at Williamsport, PA, to
provide adequate airspace for a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP)
that has been developed to serve the Williamsport Hospital (66PA),
Williamsport, PA.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before November 28, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-
2005-22491; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-019, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
 You may review the public docket containing the

rule, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the
Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room C210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist,
System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404)
305-5581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of
intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the
comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date
specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will
publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse
or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date.
If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative
comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a
document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the
Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published
with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify both
docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified
under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before
the closing date for comments will be considered, and

this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments
received.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in
evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether
additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted
will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments,
in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those
wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in
response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-
2005-22491; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-019.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace at Williamsport, PA establishing the
additionally required controlled airspace to support the newly
developed RNAV (GSP) helicopter Point in Space (PinS) approach serving
Williamsport Hospital. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700
feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required to contain the IAP and for
Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations to the extent practical,
therefore, the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 to establish additional Class E5 Airspace at
Williamsport, PA. The controlled airspace at Williamsport does not
provide adequate airspace to support this new approach, thus this
action, which provides the required controlled airspace. Designations
for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above
the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed
August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various level of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.
    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, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
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.
    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
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of the authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Williamsport Hospital,
Williamsport, PA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Williamsport, PA [Amended]

Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport, Williamsport, PA
    (Lat. 41[deg]14[min]31[sec] N., long. 76[deg]55[min]18[sec] W.)
Picture Rocks NDB
    (Lat. 41[deg]16[min]36[sec] N., long. 76[deg]42[min]37[sec] W.)
Williamsport Hospital
Point In Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 41[deg]14[min]43[sec] N., long. 77[deg]00[min]04[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 17.9-mile radius of Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport
extending clockwise from a 025[deg] bearing to a 067[deg] bearing
from the airport and within a 12.6-mile radius of Williamsport-
Lycoming County Airport extending clockwise from a 067[deg] bearing
to a 099[deg] bearing from the airport and within a 6.7-mile radius
of Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport extending clockwise from a
099[deg] bearing to a 270[deg] bearing from the airport and within
17.9-mile radius of Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport extending
clockwise from a 270[deg] bearing to a 312[deg] bearing from the
airport and within a 19.6-mile radius of Williamsport-Lycoming
County Airport extending clockwise from a 312[deg] bearing to a
350[deg] bearing from the airport and within a 6.7-mile radius of
Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport extending clockwise from a
350[deg] bearing to a 025[deg] bearing from the airport and within
4.4 miles each side of the Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport ILS
localizer east course extending from the Picture Rocks NDB to 11.3
miles east of the NDB; and that airspace within a 6-mile radius of
the point in space (lat. 41[deg]14[min]43[sec] N., long.
77[deg]00[min]04[sec] W.) serving the Williamsport Hospital.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 5, 2007.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 07-5328 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57155-57156]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23196]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0131]

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption;
Teupen North America, Inc. (Teupen)

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that Teupen North America, Inc. (Teupen) has
requested an exemption from the commercial driver's license (CDL)
requirement for Mr. Martin Borutta, a Lead Engineer for Teupen, who
holds a valid German commercial license and wants to transport Teupen's
aerial lift product to various sites in the U.S. for testing. Teupen
believes the requirements for a German commercial license ensure that
operation under the exemption will likely achieve a level of safety
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be obtained in the
absence of the exemption. FMCSA requests public comments on Teupen's
application for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2019-0131 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit 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., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages your participation by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2019-0131), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2019-0131'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305).

The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if
granted, the specific person or class of persons receiving the
exemption, and the regulatory provision or provisions from which
exemption is granted. The notice must also specify the effective period
of the exemption (up to 5 years), and explain the terms and conditions
of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    Teupen has applied for an exemption for Martin Borutta from 49 CFR
383.23, which prescribes licensing requirements for drivers operating
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate or intrastate commerce.
Mr. Borutta, holds a valid German commercial license but is unable to
obtain a CDL because he is not a U.S. resident. A copy of the
application is in Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0131.
    The exemption would allow Mr. Borutta to operate CMVs in interstate
or intrastate commerce to transport Teupen's aerial lift product--also
called a mobile elevated work platform (MEWP)--to various locations to
test its operational safety. Mr. Borutta would typically drive for no
more than 5 hours per day for one to two days. The driving would
typically be done on interstate highways, and would consist of no more
than 200 miles per day. In all cases, he would be accompanied by a U.S.
CDL holder who is familiar with the routes to be traveled. Teupen
requests that the exemption be allowed for a duration of six months.
    Mr. Borutta holds a valid German commercial license and, as
explained by Teupen in its exemption request, the requirements for that
license ensure that the same level of safety would be met or exceeded
as if this driver had a U.S. CDL

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    FMCSA has determined previously that the process for obtaining a
German commercial license is comparable to, or as effective as, the
requirements of part 383, and adequately assesses the driver's ability
to operate CMVs in the U.S. Since 2015, FMCSA has granted similar
exemptions to drivers for Daimler, another German company: [March 27,
2015 (80 FR 16511); October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60220); December 7, 2015 (80
FR 76059); December 21, 2015 (80 FR 79410)]; July 12, 2016 (81 FR
45217); July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48496); August 17, 2017 (82 FR 39151);
September 10, 2018 (83 FR 45742).]

    Issued on: October 17, 2019.
 Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-23196 Filed 10-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P