[Federal Register: June 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 110)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32651-32652]
[DOCID:fr09jn10-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0053; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-12]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Quitman, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
published in the Federal Register April 1, 2010 that establishes Class
E Airspace at Quitman Brooks County Airport, Quitman, GA.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, June 9, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on April 1, 2010 (75 FR 16333), Docket
No. FAA-2010-0053; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-12. The FAA uses the
direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where
the FAA believes that there will

be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public
that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written
adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an
adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the
regulation would become effective on June 3, 2010. No adverse comments
were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 27, 2010.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-13636 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 2715]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fourteenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Joint Plenary With EUROCAE WG-
98

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Fourteenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Joint Plenary with EUROCAE
WG-98.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the Fourteenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Joint Plenary with
EUROCAE WG-98.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 13-16, 2018 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: THALES ALENIA SPACE, 26 avenue
J.F. Champollion, Toulouse, FRANCE. Registration is required to attend
this event no later than February 2, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at [email protected]
or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or website at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Fourteenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT
Joint Plenary with EUROCAE WG-98. The agenda will include the
following:

Tuesday March 13, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

1. Welcome/introductions/administrative remarks/DFO FAA statement
2. Agenda overview and approval
3. Minutes Washington DC meeting review and approval
4. Review action items from Washington DC meeting
5. Week's plan
6. Working group of the whole meeting (rest of the day) to answer the
comments received during the second pre-FRAC/open consultation

Wednesday March 14, 2018 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

7. Working group of the whole meeting to answer the comments received
during the pre-FRAC/OC

Thursday March 15, 2018 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

8. Working group of the whole meeting to answer the comments received
during the pre-FRAC/OC

Friday March 16, 2018 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

9. Action item review
10. Consider a motion to open final review and comment/open
consultation on the revision to RTCA/DO-204B, EUROCAE ED-62B
11. Future meeting plans and dates for formal FRAC/open consultation
12. Future meeting plans for the WG-98 (MASPS for return link service)
13. Other business
14. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. Registration is required to attend the event no later
than February 2, 2018. With the approval of the chairman, members of
the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing
to present statements or obtain information should contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the
public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 12, 2018.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-00772 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59699]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23597]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 179

[Docket No. FDA-2014-F-1370]

Casa de Mesquite LLC; Filing of Food Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing
that we have filed a petition, submitted by Casa de Mesquite LLC,
proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for
the safe use of ionizing radiation to treat mesquite bean flour.

DATES: The food additive petition was filed on August 11, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa A. Croce, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), we are giving notice
that we have filed a food additive petition (FAP 4M4807), submitted by
Casa de Mesquite LLC, 10021 Pacheco Pass Hwy., Hollister, CA 95023. The
petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations in Sec.
179.26 (21 CFR 179.26), Ionizing radiation for the treatment of food,
to provide for the safe use of ionizing radiation to reduce the levels
of food-borne pathogens in mesquite bean flour.
    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(j) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    Dated: September 29, 2014.
Dennis M. Keefe,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2014-23597 Filed 10-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Request for Information  -  Funding to Address Air Pollution

Docket 4: Funding to Address Air Pollution [60105, 60106]

EPA received over $300 million in funding to support the agency's air quality mission by investing in a range of activities that will increase monitoring in and by communities, expand and strengthen national monitoring methods, improve monitoring methods and capacity, make monitoring data more available and useful for communities, and improve air quality in our nation's schools. Six of these programs are authorized under Section 60105. This section establishes a wide range of eligible applicants that includes individuals, state, local and tribal Air pollution control agencies, and other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations. EPA also received $50 million in Section 60106 to address air pollution at schools with $12.5 million dedicated to providing technical assistance and the remainder for grants and other activities to monitor and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) at schools in low-income and disadvantaged communities. Eligible applicants for this funding include individuals, air pollution control agencies, and other public nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations.

QUESTIONS:

Crosscutting Questions
 How can EPA design these programs to most effectively benefit low-income and disadvantaged communities that face disproportionate impacts from air pollution?
 How can EPA (or the federal government generally) incentivize/facilitate cooperation/coordination across state agencies to implement the IRA (to facilitate communication between a states or tribe's Department of Environmental Protection/Quality, utilities commission, and Department of Transportation and promote coordination among them)?
 What metrics should this program use for measuring success and ensuring accountability?
 What EPA technical assistance (training, tools) or other support is needed by low-income and disadvantaged communities especially for successful application for and implementation of the IRA programs?

Funding to Address Air Pollution  -  Fenceline Monitoring [60105(a)]
Funds ($117.5 million) can be used to deploy, integrate, support, and maintain fenceline air monitoring, screening air monitoring, national air toxics trend stations, and other air toxics and community monitoring.

QUESTIONS:

What are the needs for additional national air toxics trends stations and other air toxics monitoring?
          What are the most important needs for monitoring air pollution in communities near the fenceline?
          How can data systems be improved to help support the management of the additional monitoring data?
          How should EPA determine which communities or locations should receive priority for new monitoring?

Funding to Address Air Pollution  -  Multipollutant Monitoring [60105(b)]
Funds ($50 million) can be used to expand the national ambient air quality monitoring network with new multipollutant monitoring stations, and to replace, repair, operate, and maintain existing monitoring stations.

QUESTIONS:

          What are the most important considerations and needs for expanding the national ambient air quality network with new multipollutant monitoring stations?
          What should EPA consider when thinking about the existing and future needs for replacing, repairing, operating, and maintaining the national air quality monitoring network through September 30, 2031?
          How should EPA use these funds to support national multipollutatnt air quality monitoring networks (e.g. the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET)) in underserved rural communities where gaps in air monitoring data frequently exist?
          How can ambient monitoring enhancements in disadvantaged communities be best used to prioritize and accelerate improvements in air quality?
          What training and technical assistance would best help communities engage in multi-pollutant air quality planning processes to achieve community benefits of multi-pollutant emission reductions?
          To what extent has your organization/community integrated a multi-pollutant reduction approach into your air quality planning process or conversations with local stakeholders? Should EPA conduct additional analysis to help refine current plans, or should EPA first provide foundational information on how to approach this topic in your area?

Funding to Address Air Pollution  -  Air Quality Sensors [60105(c)]
Funds ($3 million) can be used for the deployment, integration, and operation of air quality sensors in low-income and disadvantaged communities.

QUESTIONS:

          What are the existing and future needs for air quality sensors in low-income and disadvantaged communities?
          How can EPA best support the deployment, integration, and operation of air quality sensors?

Funding to Address Air Pollution  -  Emissions from Wood Heaters [60105(d)]
Funds ($15 million) can be used for testing and other agency activities to address emissions from wood heaters, EPA research, development, etc., and contracts with outside organizations.

QUESTIONS:

          Beyond measuring for particle emissions from these appliances, what other air pollutants are essential to measure from residential wood heating appliances?
          What benefits to public health and air quality management are gained by improving the testing methods EPA uses to address emissions from wood heaters?
          What value do you place on data and emissions information related to cord wood fuel species burned in your area(s)?
          Do you feel that it is important for EPA to research the impact of flue draft on particulate matter emissions in relation to residential wood heating?
          Are there other technological advances that EPA should be considering to address air emissions from wood heaters?

Funding to Address Air Pollution  -  Methane Monitoring [60105(e)]
Funds ($20 million) can be used for methane emissions monitoring.

QUESTIONS:

          What methane sources might need to be addressed with measurement technology?
          What way of presenting methane data (frequency, resolution, site specificity, etc.) would be most beneficial to addressing methane measurements? Does this vary by geography?
          What are the existing knowledge gaps in methane measurement, and how can training help address these gaps?
          For methane monitoring, why do bottom-up sensor estimates differ so much from broader scale (e.g., satellite) estimates.  Can this funding help address this fundamental mismatch?

Funding to Address Air Pollution  -  Clean Air Act Grants [60105(f)]
General funding ($25 million) for Clean Air Act's research, development, and grants program.

QUESTIONS:

          How could EPA funding best support multi-pollutant air quality planning and analysis for municipalities, States, regional planning organizations, and Tribal governments, particularly toward targeting/prioritizing action in overburdened communities?

Funding to Address Air Pollution at Schools [60106]
Funding includes $37.5 million for grants and other activities to monitor and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions at schools in low-income and disadvantaged communities, and $12.5 million for technical assistance to address environmental issues, develop school environmental quality plans, identify, and mitigate ongoing air pollution hazards.

QUESTIONS:

          What barriers might eligible applicants face in applying for these grants? What kind of support would organizations need to apply?
          What specific approaches do you recommend to promote the successful award of these grants to low income and disadvantaged communities most in need of such support? What energy efficiency/greenhouse gas emission reduction technologies or approaches do you think would be the most successful in school buildings?
          What are the obstacles to integrating indoor air quality improvements with energy efficiency upgrades in school buildings, and what ideas do you have to address those challenges?
          What technical assistance, guidance and other non-financial support is most needed to help schools in low-income and disadvantaged communities implement effective and sustainable IAQ and energy efficiency programs?

      Responses must be received by 11:59 PM ET on January 18, 2023:: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0876, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions on the website for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. You do not need to address every question and should focus on those where you have relevant expertise or experience. Please identify the question(s) you are responding to by question number when submitting your comments. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. In all cases, to the extent possible, please cite any public data related to or that support your responses. If data are available, but non-public, describe such data to the extent permissible. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


RAA Notes for EO12866 meeting with OMB

Thank you for allowing us to come speak to you today.  We really
appreciate the opportunity to come speak with you.  We also appreciate
you giving us the opportunity to speak to you separately from our
colleagues at ATA.  While we support their comments and their
suggestions, we believe that RAA has a very unique perspective on the
proposed aircraft drinking water rule based on our operations.

We would like to open by stating that RAA members have always held the
health and safety of our passengers first and foremost.  We understand
the efforts of the EPA in proposing this rule; however we believe that
the cost of the proposed measures exceeds the perceived health risk.

Lack of RAA Data

RAA has 32 airline members and over 300 associate members who support
the industry.  Currently RAA members represent 40% of the domestic
airline fleet.  We are over 50% of the domestic scheduled flights, and
70% of the US airports are serviced solely by regional airlines.

We make you aware of these statistics about RAA in order to make our
first point with regard to the proposed rule.  With 40% of the domestic
fleet, and 50% of the scheduled flights, we feel that it is important to
note that EPA created this proposed rule with no data from RAA members.

Of the 32 RAA members less than 4 have actually completed their
Monitoring Period 1 requirements, and those 4 only finished their
reporting within the past few months.

EPA proposed this rule over a year ago, when most RAA members were
either just starting their monitoring period 1 program or had not
started at all.

Given our relative size and importance in the domestic market, it is
unsettling to find that a rule that uses benchmarks from only one subset
of the industry can be pushed forward and applied to all members of the
industry.

Based on this information, we submit that EPA has crafted a rule for all
carriers based on mainline carrier’s data, which will most assuredly
end up crippling the regional industry because of the costs associated
adhering to a rule that was never written to take into consideration
different types of aircraft, varying configurations of water systems on
these aircraft, and relative risk based on number of passengers, time of
flight, etc.

Request: Based on this and the other points we are going to make, we
would ask that OMB and EPA consider exemptions for regional aircraft
which we will propose

Regional vs. Mainline differences

As mentioned we think it is important to make the distinction that while
ATA and RAA carriers are all part of the US Aviation industry, we are
very different in our aircraft and our operations.  The RAA fleet
differs tremendously from that of our mainline partners:

The average seating capacity for a regional aircraft is 50 passengers,
while the average mainline capacity is over 100.

The water tank capacity for an average regional carrier is 5 gallons
with only a handful of airframes exceeding 10 gallons.  Most of our
mainline partners carry at least 30 gallons of water.

A majority of regional airline configurations contain no galley at all
and only one lavatory (the only sampling point would be the lavatory
sink).

The average flight time for a regional aircraft for one segment is 1.5
hrs.  Network carriers are more than double that average flight time.

As we purchase new aircraft, the water configuration and tank volume for
the new aircraft seems to continue to remain the same.

Request 1: Based on our configurations with many not having a galley,
the current rule as proposed requires us to then take two samples from
the same lavatory.  We estimate that the cost of a single sample for one
aircraft to be approximately $766.  We believe this to be extremely
onerous given that the real risk associated with the Aircraft Drinking
Water Systems is in the water actually served to passengers. Previous
drinking water guidelines and regulations for land based potable water
testing have continually advised that taking samples from a lavatory are
never optimal.   We would respectfully ask for an exemption for all
aircraft without a galley configuration, provided the airline continues
to follow the proposed rules for scheduled disinfection and sanitization
of their lavatory systems.

Request 2: Should you not be willing to provide the exemption for that
configuration, then we would ask that you consider a reduction in the
number of samples from two to one for the lavatory.  At a cost of almost
$800 per sample it is burdensome and cost prohibitive to require two
samples from the same source at the same time.  We believe that one
sample should suffice in serving the purpose of reporting on the health
and quality of the water system.

Request 3: we would also request that the revised rule be changed to
allow for a positive Total Coliform to be processed without incurring
the reporting requirements as long as the airline follows the procedures
for disinfecting and sanitizing the aircraft water systems and then
taking another sample which returns clean.  We firmly believe that one
Total Coliform positive does not necessarily indicate a problem with the
water or the system.

Risk Assessment

We believe the proposed rule fails to provide an accurate risk
assessment of the possibilities of exposure and over burdens the
airlines with reporting and sampling requirements that far exceed the
possible risk.  This is especially the case in the regional airline
industry.

Again the average capacity of a regional aircraft is 50 passengers

The average flight is 1.5 hours or less

There is limited food prep (if any) which consists of canned soda,
bottled water, and pre-packaged food items.

All of these items add up to limited or minimal exposure opportunities
and pathways.

If you take the average regional aircraft with 50 passengers and the
average tank configuration of 5 gallons it works out to roughly 0.16ozs
per passenger in potable water.

Many of the regional airlines already post placards in the lavatory
indicating that the water is not intended for human consumption.  All
regional carriers that serve any kind of food service always have
bottled water on board specifically for consumption purposes.

A close inspection of the data provided to you by ATA and that can be
provided to you by RAA would show that Galley samples routinely come
back negative, while lavatory samples come back negative.  Indicating
that there are other factors involved in the positives associated with
the lavatory.

Request 1: By not exempting this configuration you are requiring the
airline to take samples they know have a good chance of coming back
positive, yet the system they are from is a less likely source of
consumption by the consumer. Again we would respectfully ask that you
consider an exemption from testing for those aircraft that do not have a
galley configuration.

Request 2: Given that land based potable water systems are often allowed
to have a single source for water testing that is not associated with a
lavatory, we would ask you to consider including language that would
allow for samples to be taken from “an alternate source” on the
aircraft.  For example, the revised rule could include language
encouraging airframe manufacturers to create a single sampling point
that is neither in the lavatory nor in the galley that gives a true
representation of the water in the system.  Or perhaps it would allow
for the airlines themselves to create or identify a collecting point
within their system that does not necessarily come from the tap but
rather the tank or some other location.

Cost Analysis vs. Health Benefits

As established in the previous discussions we don’t believe that the
EPA has established a risk factor high enough to warrant the costs
associated with complying with the rule.

The cost assumptions for this proposed rule significantly underestimate
the actual costs the regional air carriers will incur should this rule
be adopted.

Regional airlines would be forced to hire personnel just to monitor and
comply with this rule, and these are personnel that the airlines cannot
afford at this time.

Airlines would most definitely have to hire analytical and consulting
services in order to make sure they could keep up with the reporting
requirements.  Given the fact that in the past two years 5 airlines have
either gone bankrupt or out of business completely, this is not the time
to be adding costs for a low risk item.

As mentioned earlier the average price of a single sample for a single
aircraft can cost $766.  Given the amount of sampling required by this
rule, we believe the cost associated with sampling could become one of
the largest cost centers at an airline.

In order to keep up with the record keeping and notification process,
airlines will be forced to spend millions in software changes to their
system in order to comply with the rule.

Removing an aircraft from service for the purpose of disinfecting and
sanitizing based on a positive Total Coliform costs time and money as
that removes an aircraft from revenue generation unnecessarily.  Having
the ability to turn the water system off until it can be sanitized would
be more appropriate.

If we had a mechanical issue with the water system and the water has to
be shut off, we are not currently required to make notifications to
crew, but if we shut it off for a potential false positive we are
required to make notifications to all crew. This does not seem to make
sense.  We recognize that crew should be notified of the hit and the
date of occurrence; however we believe that the required statement that
must be posted in the galley is well beyond what should be required.  ?

Most of the reporting requirements and documentation requested by the
EPA are already parts of required FAA notifications in Maintenance
Repair Overhaul Systems (MROS).  This rule is asking the airlines to
keep duplicate records of items that can already be obtained via record
kept as a requirement for the FAA.  That is not only a duplication of
work, but an exponential waste of airline resources and money to
document the same information twice for two different agencies.

Request 1: We ask that the EPA coordinate with the FAA to determine
where there are duplicative reporting requirements and determine how the
two agencies can share the same information from the same source rather
than requiring the airlines to keep the same information.  This would
result in a cost savings and make the requirements of this rule less
onerous.

Request 2: We ask that in a circumstance where we may have a total
Coliform positive that we be allowed to restrict access to the water
system until it can be sanitized and re-tested without taking the
aircraft out of service as long as it is done within a reasonable time
frame.

Other Considerations

Perhaps the EPA would consider changing the definition of Consumption
for the purposes of this rule?

Would the EPA consider gels, sanitizers, or hand wipes as an alternate
to access to potable water in the lavatory assuming we post a sign
indicating that anyone needing water for hygiene purposes in the
lavatory may request a bottle of water from the flight attendant?


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67037-67040]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23261]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90204; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Authorize for Trading Flexible Exchange Options
on Full-Value Indexes With a Contract Multiplier of One

October 15, 2020.
    On June 30, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule
change to authorize for trading flexible exchange options (``FLEX
Options'') on full-value indexes with a contract multiplier of one. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on July 20, 2020.\3\ On September 2, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Exchange Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period
within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ This order institutes
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \6\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89308 (July 14,
2020), 85 FR 43923 (``Notice''). Comments received on the proposed
rule change are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2020-034/srcboe2020034.htm.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89743, 85 FR 55717
(September 9, 2020). The Commission designated October 18, 2020, as
the date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposal and Comment Received \7\

    The Exchange has proposed to amend its rules to authorize for
trading on the Exchange FLEX Options on full-value indexes (``FLEX
Index Options'') with a contract multiplier of one. Currently, CBOE
Rule 4.21(b)(1) states that the index multiplier for FLEX Index Options
is 100. The Exchange proposes to provide that, in addition to the

current index multiplier of 100, the index multiplier for FLEX Index
Options on full-value indexes may also be one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For a complete description of the Exchange's proposal, see
the Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's rules provide that, when submitting a FLEX Order,
the submitting FLEX Trader \8\ must include all required terms of a
FLEX Option series,\9\ including the underlying equity security or
index (i.e., the FLEX Option class) on the FLEX Order. The proposed
rule change would amend Rule 4.21(b)(1) to state that if a FLEX Trader
specifies a full-value index on a FLEX Order, the FLEX Trader must also
include whether the index option has an index multiplier of 100 or 1
when identifying the class of FLEX Order. In the proposal, the Exchange
stated that each FLEX Index Option series in a FLEX Index Option class
with a multiplier of one will include the same flexible terms as any
other FLEX Option series, including strike price, settlement,
expiration date, and exercise style as required by Rule 4.21(b).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A ``FLEX Trader'' is a Trading Permit Holder the Exchange
has approved to trade FLEX Options on the Exchange.
    \9\ These terms include, in addition to the underlying equity
security or index, the type of options (put or call), exercise
style, expiration date, settlement type, and exercise price. See
Rule 4.21(b). A ``FLEX Order'' is an order submitted in FLEX
Options. The submission of a FLEX Order makes the FLEX Option series
in that order eligible for trading. See Rule 5.72(b).
    \10\ The Exchange stated that because these are the terms
designated by the Commission as those that constitute standardized
options, therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 9(b) of the Exchange Act. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 31910 (February 23, 1993), 58 FR 12056
(March 2, 1993) (Order Designating FLEX Options as Standardized
Options under Rule 9b-1 of the Exchange Act) (``FLEX Rule 9b-1
Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's rules permit trading in a put or call FLEX Option
series only if it does not have the same exercise style, same
expiration date, and same exercise price as a non-FLEX option series on
the same underlying security or index that is already available for
trading.\11\ Rule 1.1 defines the term ``series'' as all option
contracts of the same class that are the same type of option and have
the same exercise price and expiration date. The Exchange stated that
it therefore believes that a FLEX Option series in one class may have
the same exercise style, expiration date, settlement, and exercise
price as a non-FLEX option series in a different class, even if they
are on the same underlying security or index. The Exchange stated that
it believes, for example, pursuant to the proposed rule change, a FLEX
Option series overlying the S&P 500 with a multiplier of one may have
the same exercise style, expiration date, settlement, and exercise
price as a non-FLEX option series overlying the S&P 500 with a
multiplier of 100, as they are series in different classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 4.21(a)(1). Non-FLEX options are standardized
options traded on CBOE's non-FLEX options market. All terms of non-
FLEX options such as strike prices, exercise types, expiration
dates, and settlement types are the same and standardized for all
market participants trading non-FLEX options. This is in contrast to
the Exchange's FLEX Options market where such terms can be
``flexed'' by market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represented that FLEX Index Options with a multiplier
of one will be traded in the same manner as all other FLEX Options
pursuant to Chapter 5, Section F of the Exchange's rules. The proposed
rule change would amend Rule 4.21(b)(6) to state that the exercise
price for a FLEX Index Option series in a class with a multiplier of
one is set at the same level as the exercise price for a FLEX Index
Option series in a class with a multiplier of 100. The proposed rule
change also would add to Rule 5.3(e)(3) that FLEX Index Options with a
multiplier of one must be expressed in (a) U.S. dollars and decimals if
the exercise price for the FLEX Option series is a fixed price, or (b)
a percentage, if the exercise price for the FLEX Option series is a
percentage of the closing value of the underlying equity security or
index on the trade date, per 1/100th unit. In addition, the proposed
rule change would state that the Exchange's system rounds bids and
offers of FLEX Options to the nearest minimum increment following
application of the designated percentage to the closing value of the
underlying security or index. The Exchange stated that it believes that
this is consistent with current functionality and is merely a
clarification in the Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange stated that it believes a FLEX Option position with a
multiplier of one would not be fungible with any non-FLEX index option.
Pursuant to Rule 4.22(a), a FLEX Option position becomes fungible with
a non-FLEX option that becomes listed with identical terms. The
Exchange stated that it does not list for trading any non-FLEX index
option class with a multiplier of one, and that, therefore, in its
view, no FLEX Index Option series with a multiplier of 100 could be
identical to, and fungible with, any non-FLEX option pursuant to Rule
4.22(a) despite the fact that all the other terms of the FLEX Index
Option could be identical to a non-FLEX index option. The Exchange
stated that if it determines to list non-FLEX index options with a one
multiplier in the future, then a FLEX Index Option with a multiplier of
one would become fungible with any non-FLEX index option with a
multiplier of one with the same terms pursuant to Rule 4.22(a).
    The proposed rule change would amend Rule 8.35(a) regarding
position limits for FLEX Options to describe how FLEX Index Options
with a multiplier of one will be counted for purposes of determining
compliance with position limits. Because 100 FLEX Index Options with a
multiplier of one are equivalent to one FLEX Index Option with a
multiplier of 100 overlying the same index due to the difference in
contract multipliers, proposed Rule 8.35(a)(7) states that for purposes
of determining compliance with the position limits under Rule 8.35, 100
FLEX Index Option contracts with a multiplier of one equal one FLEX
Index Option contract with a multiplier of 100 with the same underlying
index.\12\ The Exchange stated that it believes that this is consistent
with the current treatment of other reduced-value FLEX Index Options
with respect to position limits. The proposed rule change also would
amend Rule 8.42 to make a corresponding statement regarding the
application of exercise limits to FLEX Index Options with a multiplier
of one. The Exchange stated that the margin requirements set forth in
Chapter 10 of the Exchange's rules would apply to FLEX Index Options
with a multiplier of one (as they currently do to all FLEX
Options).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ According to the Exchange, the proposed rule change would
make a corresponding change to Rule 8.35(b) to clarify that, like
reduced-value FLEX contracts, FLEX Index Option contracts with a
multiplier of one will be aggregated with full-value contracts and
counted by the amount by which they equal a full-value contract for
purposes of the reporting obligation in that provision (i.e., 100
FLEX Index Options with a multiplier of one will equal one FLEX
Index Option contract with a multiplier of 100 overlying the same
index).
    \13\ The Exchange stated that, pursuant to Rule 8.43(j), FLEX
Index Options with a multiplier of one will be aggregated with non-
FLEX index options on the same underlying index in the same manner
as all other FLEX Index Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange stated that it believes that permitting investors to
trade FLEX Index Option contracts on full-value indexes with an index
multiplier of one will provide investors with additional granularity in
the prices at which they may execute and exercise their FLEX Options on
the Exchange, and thus provide investors with an additional tool to
manage the positions and associated risk in their portfolios based on
notional value, which currently may equal a fraction of a standard
contract.
    The Exchange represented that, with regard to the impact of this
proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and
represents that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the
necessary systems

capacity to handle the potential additional traffic associated with the
listing and trading of FLEX Index Options with a multiplier of one. The
Exchange also stated that it understands that the Options Clearing
Corporation will be able to accommodate the listing and trading of FLEX
Index Options with a multiplier of one. The Exchange stated that, to
reduce any potential confusion, FLEX Index Options with a multiplier of
one would be listed with different trading symbols than FLEX Index
Options with a multiplier of 100.
    To date the Commission has received one comment letter, which
supports the proposed rule change.\14\ The commenter stated that, as a
customer of CBOE, the proposal would ``dramatically increase the ease
of use FLEX options'' in its hedging process.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See letter from Joyana Pilquist, CFA, dated August 24,
2020.
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-CBOE-
2020-034 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \16\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change, as discussed below.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, as stated below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested
persons to provide comments on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,\17\ the
Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under
consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with the
Exchange Act, and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange
Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would permit the trading of FLEX Index Options with a
contract multiplier of one, which could have the exact same, or
similar, terms as non-FLEX options \19\ on the same index with a
multiplier of 100.\20\ The trading of FLEX Index Options with a
contract multiplier of one under the proposal presents issues related
to price protection in currently-existing non-FLEX index options on the
same underlying index. Specifically, permitting two options with
different contract multipliers on the same underlying interest could
have the effect of allowing FLEX Options with a multiplier of one to
gain priority over customer orders on the book for the similar non-FLEX
index options overlying the same index and also allow bypassing or
trading through the national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') in non-FLEX
index options. Furthermore, the proposal could lead to market
fragmentation by allowing FLEX Index Options to trade with a multiplier
of one and index options on the same index to trade in the non-FLEX
market with a multiplier of 100. Accordingly, the Commission believes
there are questions as to whether the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and the requirements that the rules
of the exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, and in
general, to protect investors and the public interest, and whether the
proposal is consistent with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets
under the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 11.
    \20\ Under the proposal, 100 FLEX Index Options with a
multiplier of one would be economically equivalent to one non-FLEX
index option with the same exact terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FLEX Rule 9b-1 Order deemed FLEX Options to be standardized
options for purposes of the options disclosure framework established
under Exchange Act Rule 9b-1, which applies solely to standardized
options.\21\ The FLEX Rule 9b-1 Order specifically discussed the
ability to flex strike prices, settlement, expiration dates, and
exercise style, and states that all of the other terms of FLEX Options
are standardized.\22\ In addition, the Original FLEX Order specifically
stated that the index multiplier, among other terms, is the same for
FLEX as for non-FLEX index options.\23\ Accordingly, the Commission
believes there are questions as to whether the Exchange's proposal is
consistent with the FLEX Rule 9b-1 Order and Original FLEX Order and
the policies underlying those orders, and whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See FLEX Rule 9b-1 Order, supra note 10.
    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31920 (February 24,
1993), 58 FR 12280 at 12282 (March 3, 1993) (original order
approving a CBOE proposal to list and trade FLEX Options on the S&P
100 and 500 Index options (``Original FLEX Order'')). The Original
FLEX Order stated, among other things, that except for flexing
certain terms different from a standardized option (i.e., (1) strike
prices; (2) exercise types; (3) expiration date; and (4) form of
settlement), ``[o]ther terms, such as the level of the index
multiplier and the nature of the rights and obligations FLEX Option
purchasers and sellers, are the same for FLEX as for non-FLEX index
options.'' The Commission notes that the Exchange does not currently
allow trading of options with a multiplier of one on either FLEX or
non-FLEX index options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under the Commission's Rules of
Practice, the ``burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory organization [``SRO''] that
proposed the rule change.\24\ The description of a proposed rule
change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of
its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently
detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,\25\
and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may result in the
Commission not having sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding
that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the
applicable rule and regulations.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission believes it is appropriate to
institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
Act \27\ to determine whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Exchange
Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would

be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments,
the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for
an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No.
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by November 12, 2020. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
November 25, 2020.
    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the
Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth
in the Notice,\29\ in addition to any other comments they may wish to
submit about the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-034 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-CBOE-2020-034. 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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-034 and should be submitted on
or before November 12, 2020. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
November 25, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23261 Filed 10-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28119-28120]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10875]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0371]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Implantable
Cardioverter Defibrillators

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

ACTION: Notice of denials of exemption applications.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 7
individuals seeking exemptions from the Federal cardiovascular standard
applicable to interstate truck and bus drivers and discusses the
reasons for the denials. The Agency reviewed the medical information of
each the individuals who applied for an implantable cardioverter
defibrillator (ICD) exemption. Based on a review of the applications
and following an opportunity for public comment, FMCSA has concluded
that the 7 individuals in the notice did not demonstrate they could
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the
regulation.

DATES: Denial letters were sent to each of the individuals listed in
this notice on March 1, 2016.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for up to five years
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions for up to an
additional five years at the end of each five-year period.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), as amended by section 5206(a) of the
FAST Act, Pub. L. 114-94, div. A, title V, 129 Stat. 1537 (Dec. 4,
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 27, 2015, FMCSA published for public notice and
comment, FMCSA 2015-0371, listing 7 individuals seeking exemptions for
ICDs. Accordingly, the Agency has evaluated each applicant's request to
determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level
of safety mandated by statute.

Evaluation Criteria--Cardiovascular Medical Standard and Advisory
Criteria

    The individuals included in this notice have requested an exemption
from the provisions of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(4), which applies to drivers
who operate CMVs in interstate commerce, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5.
Section 391.41(b)(4) states that:

A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle
if--
* * * * *
that person has no current clinical diagnosis of myocardial
infarction, angina pectoris, coronary insufficiency, thrombosis, or
any other cardiovascular disease of a variety known to be
accompanied by syncope [a temporary loss of consciousness due to a
sudden decline in blood flow to the brain], dyspnea [shortness of
breath], collapse, or congestive cardiac failure.

    The FMCSA provides medical advisory criteria as recommendations for
use by medical examiners in determining whether drivers with certain
medical conditions and drivers who have undergone certain procedures
and/or treatments should be certified to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce in accordance with the various physical qualification
standards in 49 CFR part 391, subpart E. The advisory criteria are
currently set out in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391. The advisory
criteria for section 391.41(b)(4) provide, in part, that:

The term ``has no current clinical diagnosis of'' is specifically
designed to encompass: ``a clinical diagnosis of'' (1) a current
cardiovascular condition, or (2) a cardiovascular condition which
has not fully stabilized regardless of the time limit. The term
``known to be accompanied by'' is designed to include a clinical
diagnosis of a cardiovascular disease (1) which is accompanied by
symptoms of syncope, dyspnea, collapse or congestive cardiac
failure; and/or (2) which is likely to cause syncope, dyspnea,
collapse, or congestive cardiac failure.
It is the intent of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to
render unqualified, a driver who has a current cardiovascular
disease which is accompanied by and/or likely to cause symptoms of
syncope, dyspnea, collapse, or congestive cardiac failure. However,
the subjective decision of whether the nature and severity of an
individual's condition will likely cause symptoms of cardiovascular
insufficiency is on an individual basis and qualification rests with
the medical examiner and the motor carrier.

    In the case of persons with ICDs, the underlying condition for
which the ICD was implanted places the individual at high risk for
syncope (a transient loss of consciousness) or other unpredictable
events known to result in gradual or sudden incapacitation. ICDs may
discharge, which could result in loss of ability to safely control a
CMV. See the Evidence Report on ``Cardiovascular Disease and Commercial
Motor Vehicle Driver Safety,'' April 2007.\2\ A focused research report
entitled ``Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators and the Impact of a
Shock on a Patient When Deployed,'' completed for the FMCSA in December
2014, indicates that the available scientific data on persons with ICDs
and CMV driving does not support that persons with ICDs who operate
CMVs are able to meet an equal or greater level of safety and upholds
the findings of the April 2007 report. Copies of the April 2007 report
and the December 2014 report are included in the docket for this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Now available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30100/30123/Final_CVD_Evidence_Report_v2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Public Comments

    On November 27, 2015, FMCSA published in a Federal Register Notice
the names of 7 individuals seeking ICD exemption and requested public
comment. The public comment period closed on December 28, 2015. A total
of 13 commenters responded to the notice. Each of the comments was
favorable towards the applicants continuing to drive CMV's with ICD's.
Commenters believed that the individuals seeking exemptions were
responsible drivers who had safe professional driving and work
histories and believed that their medical conditions did not present
safety concerns. One anonymous physician encouraged the FMCSA to
accommodate individuals with ICD's that have never deployed or that
have not deployed in many years by developing an exception to the
general rule that would still protect public safety.

FMCSA's Response

    FMCSA acknowledges the commenters' reports of safe driving
histories and concerns for the driving careers of the applicants. Based
on the available medical literature cited above, however, FMCSA
believes that a driver with an ICD is at risk for incapacitation if the
device discharges. This risk is combined with the risks associated with
the underlying cardiovascular condition for which the ICD has been
implanted as a primary or secondary preventive measure.

Conclusion

    FMCSA evaluated the 7 individual exemption requests on their
merits, available data from Evidence Reports and Medical Expert Panel
opinions on the impact of ICDs on Commercial Motor Vehicle driving, and
the public comments received. The Agency has determined that the
available medical literature and data does not support a conclusion
that granting these exemptions would achieve a level of safety
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions. Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a
letter of final disposition on his/her exemption request. Those
decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute
final Agency action. The list published today summarizes the Agency's
recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4).
    The following 7 applicants are denied exemptions from the
cardiovascular standard. Ellis James Benson, Jon Carey, Martin Carter,
Carl Jeglum, William Kastner, Mark Todd Smith, Andre Williams.

    Issued on: April 28, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-10875 Filed 5-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13141-13142]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04688]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0041]

Logging Operations Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of the Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements contained in the Logging Operations
Standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
May 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0041,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2010-0041) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and

OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The collections of information contained in the Logging Operations
Standard are necessary to reduce workers' risk of death or serious
injury by requiring employers to assure that operating and maintenance
instructions are available on machines or in the area where the machine
is operated. For vehicles, employers must assure that operating and
maintenance instructions are available for each vehicle.

Maintenance and Operating Instructions (Sec. Sec.  1910.266(f)(1)(iii)
and (g)(3))

    Under paragraph (f)(1)(iii) and (g)(3) of the Standard, employers
must assure that operating and maintenance instructions are available
on machines or in the area where the machine is being operated, and in
vehicles. For those machines with no operating instructions in the cab,
the employer will be required to obtain and retain a manual within the
immediate work area for each machine. Since the Logging Operations
final rule has been in effect since 1995, OSHA assumes that all
employers are in compliance with the provision to have operating and
maintenance instructions available on machines or in the area where the
machines are being operated.

Certification of Training (Sec.  1910.266(i)(10)(i) and (i)(10)(ii))

    Paragraph (i)(10)(i) requires employers to certify in writing that
a worker/supervisor received the training the Standard requires. Under
paragraph (i)(10)(ii), employers need only maintain the most recent
certification for training that a worker/supervisor has received.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
cost) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply,
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Action

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Logging Operations Standard
(29 CFR 1910.266). OSHA is proposing to decrease the burden hours in
its currently approved information collection request from 1,622 burden
hours to 1,606 burden hours (a total decrease of 16 hours). This
decrease is due to updated data showing a decrease in the number of
establishments affected by the Standard as well as the removal of
burden hours associated with the requirement that employers provide
training to workers. Upon further analysis, this provision is not
considered to be a collection of information under PRA-95. The Agency
will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and
will include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Logging Operations Standard (29 CFR 1910.266).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0198.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 7,908.
    Number of Responses: 50,440.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,603 hours.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $3,469.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0041). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publically available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link.
    Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the
Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Dated: February 27, 2017.
Dorothy Dougherty,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2017-04688 Filed 3-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 34871]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11505]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4584-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Washington; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Washington (FEMA-4584-DR), dated February 4, 2021, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on March 27, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Andrew P.
Meyer, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of David R. Gervino as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-11505 Filed 5-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P