[Federal Register: January 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2289-2290]
[DOCID:fr13ja06-147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53078; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-88]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Elimination of the 500 Contract Cap on Payment for
Order Flow Fees

January 9, 2006.
    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 December 23, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Phlx
has designated this proposal as one changing a fee imposed by the Phlx
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Phlx proposes to eliminate the 500-contract cap per individual
cleared side of a transaction which is currently imposed in connection
with the Exchange's equity options payment for order flow program.\5\
The Exchange states that the elimination of the 500-contract cap would
be scheduled to become effective for trades settling on or after
January 2, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52568 (October 6,
2005), 70 FR 60120 (October 14, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed deletions
are in [brackets].
* * * * *

Summary of Equity Option Charges (p. 3/6)

    For any top 120 option listed after February 1, 2004 and for any
top 120 option acquired by a new specialist unit ** within the first
60-days of operations, the following thresholds will apply, with a cap
of $10,000 for the first 4 full months of trading per month per option
provided that the total monthly market share effected on the Phlx in
that top 120 Option is equal to or greater than 50% of the volume
threshold in effect:

First full month of trading: 0% national market share.
Second full month of trading: 3% national market share.
Third full month of trading: 6% national market share.
Fourth full month of trading: 9% national market share.
Fifth full month of trading (and thereafter): 12% national market
share.

    ** A new specialist unit is one that is approved to operate as a
specialist unit by the Options Allocation, Evaluation, and
Securities Committee on or after February 1, 2004 and is a
specialist unit that is not currently affiliated with an existing
options specialist unit as reported on the member organization's
Form BD, which refers to direct and indirect owners, or as reported
in connection with any other financial arrangement, such as is
required by Exchange Rule 783.
Real-Time Risk Management Fee
    $.0025 per contract for firms/members receiving information on a
real-time basis.
Equity Option Payment for Order Flow Fees *
    (1) For trades resulting from either Directed or non-Directed
Orders that are delivered electronically and executed on the Exchange:
Assessed on ROTs, specialists and Directed ROTs on those trades when
the specialist unit or Directed ROT elects to participate in the
payment for order flow program.***
    (2) No payment for order flow fees will be assessed on trades that
are not delivered electronically.

QQQQ (NASDAQ-100 Index Tracking StockSM)--$0.75 per
contract.
Remaining Equity Options, except FXI Options--$0.60 per contract.

    * Assessed on transactions resulting from customer orders[,
subject to a 500-contract cap, per individual cleared side of
transaction]. This proposal will be in effect for trades settling on
or after October 1, 2005 and will remain in effect as a pilot
program that is scheduled to expire on May 27, 2006.
    *** Any excess payment for order flow funds billed but not
utilized by the specialist or Directed ROT will be carried forward
unless the Directed ROT or specialist elects to have those funds
rebated to the applicable ROT, Directed ROT or specialist on a pro
rata basis, reflected as a credit on the monthly invoices.

See Appendix A for additional fees.
* * * * *

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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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
    According to the Phlx, currently, the following payment for order
flow rates are in effect at the Exchange: (1) Equity options other than
QQQQ \6\ and FXI Options are assessed $0.60 per contract; (2) options
on QQQQ are assessed $0.75 per contract; and (3) no payment for order
flow fees are assessed on FXI Options. Trades resulting from either
Directed or non-Directed Orders that are delivered electronically over
AUTOM and executed on the Exchange are assessed a payment for order
flow fee, while non-electronically-delivered orders (i.e., represented
by a floor broker) are not assessed a payment for order flow fee.\7\
The Exchange also imposes a 500-contract cap per individual cleared
side of a transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Nasdaq-100[reg], Nasdaq-100 Index[reg], Nasdaq[reg], The
Nasdaq Stock Market[reg], Nasdaq-100 SharesSM, Nasdaq-100
TrustSM, Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking StockSM,
and QQQSM are trademarks or service marks of The Nasdaq
Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq'') and have been licensed for use for
certain purposes by the Phlx pursuant to a License Agreement with
Nasdaq. The Nasdaq-100 Index[reg] (``Index'') is determined,
composed, and calculated by Nasdaq without regard to the Licensee,
the Nasdaq-100 TrustSM, or the beneficial owners of
Nasdaq-100 SharesSM. The Exchange states that Nasdaq has
complete control and sole discretion in determining, comprising, or
calculating the Index or in modifying in any way its method for
determining, comprising, or calculating the Index in the future.
    \7\ The Phlx states that electronically-delivered orders do not
include orders delivered through the Floor Broker Management System
pursuant to Exchange Rule 1063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the 500-contract
cap per

individual cleared side of a transaction. The Phlx states that the
purpose of this proposal is to remain competitive with other options
payment for order flow programs in place at other exchanges that do not
cap payment for order flow fees collected on a per order or trade
basis.\8\ The Exchange represents that no other changes to the
Exchange's payment for order flow program are being proposed at this
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52024 (July
13, 2005), 70 FR 41806 (July 20, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-82). Telephone
conversation between Cynthia K. Hoekstra, Director, Exchange, and
Michou Nguyen, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission,
on January 9, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among the Phlx's members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \12\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal
will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60
days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-Phlx-2005-88 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-88. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Phlx. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2005-88 and should be submitted on or before
February 3, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-326 Filed 1-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 40099]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17390]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  83 FR 25496, June
1, 2018.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:  Tuesday, June 5,
2018 at 10:00 a.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING:  The Open Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June
5, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. has been changed to Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at
11:30 a.m. The following items will not be considered during the
Commission's Open Meeting:
     Whether to adopt a new rule as well as amendments to rules
and forms to provide certain registered investment companies
(``funds'') with an optional method to transmit shareholder reports.
     whether to issue a release requesting comment about
processing fees for delivering shareholder reports and other materials
to fund investors.
     whether to issue a release requesting comment from
individual investors and other interested parties on how to enhance the
delivery, design, and content of fund disclosures, including
shareholder reports and prospectuses.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 4, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17390 Filed 8-9-18; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26210-26211]
[DOCID:fr11my10-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

April 30, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP09-428-003.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits Sub First Revised Sheet
10A et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 04/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100422-0205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP05-164-016.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Equitans, LP submits the Annual Gather Rate Compliance
Filing.
    Filed Date: 04/27/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100427-0208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 10, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-451-001.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits their Third Revised Sheet
10A to FERC gas tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective 5/1/
10.
    Filed Date: 04/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100429-0205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 10, 2010.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified Comment Date. Anyone filing a protest must serve
a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11121 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 188 (Friday, October 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54361]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21227]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0235; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-18]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of Class E Airspace: Port Huron, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA published the same final action twice, on September 1,
2021, and again on September 9, 2021. The FAA is withdrawing the first
publication.

DATES: Effective October 1, 2021, FR Doc. 2021-18759, published at 86
FR 48905 (September 1, 2021), is withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, 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 Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published FR Doc. 2021-18759 (86 FR 48905) on September 1,
2021, with an effective date of October 7, 2021. This docket did not
allow sufficient time to accomplish charting, and the FAA re-published
the same document as FR Doc. 2021-19275 (86 FR 50453) on September 9,
2021, with a later effective date of December 2, 2021, without
withdrawing the first document. The FAA is withdrawing the first
document.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the final rule
published in the Federal Register on September 1, 2021, (86 FR 48905)
FR Doc. 2021-18759 is hereby withdrawn.

    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.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 24, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-21227 Filed 9-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 99 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29498-29501]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0004]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 66 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective May 22, 2014. The exemptions expire
on May 23, 2016.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On April 1, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (79 FR 18392). That notice listed 66 applicants' case histories.
The 66 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 66 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 66
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, central scar, ocular histoplasmosis,
prosthetic eye, corneal scar, strabismic amblyopia, corneal ulcer, lens
opacity, macular scar, cataract, congenital amblyopia, optic nerve
damage, complete loss of vision, macular lesion, corneal laceration,
scar tissue, refractive amblyopia, aphakia, total retinal detachment,
central corneal scarring, detached retina, keratoconus, enucleation,
strabismus, exotropia, macular hole, epiretinal membrane, congenital
retinal damage, coloboma, central retinal artery occlusion, congenital
cataract, glaucoma, retinoschisis, and anisometropia. In most cases,
their eye conditions were not recently developed. Forty-seven of the
applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had
them since childhood.
    The nineteen individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a period of 5 to 31 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 66 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from 1 to 55
years. In the past 3 years, two of the drivers were involved in crashes
and five were convicted for moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the April 1, 2014
notice (79 FR 18392).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers

demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a
conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying
conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to
have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate
safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 66 applicants, two of the drivers were involved in crashes and five
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 66 applicants listed in the notice of April
1, 2014 (79 FR 18392).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 66 individuals consistent with the
    grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in
the Agency's vision waiver program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received three comments in this proceeding. The comments are
discussed below.
    Simon Batter and Robert Turley are in favor of granting Blaine R.
Dickman an exemption from the vision standard.
    Kenneth Stewart is in favor of granting George E. Lewis and
exemption from the vision standard.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 66 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Britton J. Anderson (KS), Rodney R. Anderson (PA), Kenneth R.
Anselm (KY), James E. Baker (OH), Alphonso A. Barco (SC), Aaron D.
Barnett (IA), Daniel W. Bobb (PA), Anatoliy A. Bogdanets (OR), Stanley
R. Cap (SD), Louis Castro (MT), David F. Cialdea (MA), Bobby E. Collins
(NC), Michael T. Craddock (CA), Eric C. Dettrey (NJ), Dean E. Dexter
(SD), Blaine R. Dickman (NV), David C. Dockery (CA), Timothy C. Dotson
(MO), Barent H. Eliason (MO), Peter D. J. Ensor (MD), Paul W. Fettig
(SD), Roger L. Frazier (NC), Joey W. Freeman (AR), Kevin L. Fritz (IL),
Grant G. Gibson (MN), Danny J. Goss (MO), Todd C. Grider (IN), James P.
Griffin (WA), Dennis P. Hart (OR), Kyle C. Holschlag (IA), Michael T.
Huso (MN), Earl E. Kennedy III (PA), James D. Kessler (SD), Eric W.
Kopmann (MO), Robin D. Kurtz (CT), Sherell J. Landry (TX), George E.
Lewis (OH), Ronald N. Lindgren (MN), James L. Maddox (GA), Robert P.
Malarkey, Sr. (NY), Michael L. Manning (MO), Philip D. Mathys (OH),
Rodney J. McMorran (IA), Johnny L. Meese (MO), Corey L. Morman (FL),
Jaime P. Narte, Jr. (WA), James M. Nohl (MN), Thomas G. Ohlson (NY),
Jason S. Otto (KY), Nathan J. Price (ID), Robert D. Reeder (MI), Ricky
L. Rice (PA), Johnnie K. Richard (LA), Jorge L. Y. Rivera (CA), Craig
Robinson (FL), Michael E. Schlachter (WY), Kenneth W. Sigl (WI), Robert
A. Simpson (MS), Jeffrey L. Singley (MD), Dennis Torrence (WI), Julie
J. Walsh (ND), Michael T. Wimber (MT), Elmer F. Winters (NC), Theodore
R. Wolden (MN), Eugene T. Wolf (IA), and Duane R. Yoder (IN) from the
vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements
cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may

apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: May 8, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-11883 Filed 5-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 87 (Monday, May 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26380-26381]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0286]

Proposal To Replace the Existing Movable I-5 Bridge Across the
Columbia River With a Fixed Multi-use Bridge Which Will Accommodate
Vehicular, Light Rail, Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic and Will Be
Called the Columbia River Crossing; Application Availability

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments; notice of
public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard, under its General Bridge Act of 1946 permit
authority, announces the availability of a bridge permit application
submitted by Columbia River Crossing (CRC). CRC's proposed project
includes a new fixed bridge that will cross the Columbia River adjacent
to the existing Interstate 5 bridge connecting Portland, Oregon and
Vancouver, Washington. This new fixed bridge will provide 116 feet of
vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum to accommodate waterway
users. In addition to vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, the
proposed bridge will carry a light rail line that will extend
Portland's light rail service into Vancouver, Washington.
    Through this notice, the Coast Guard is soliciting your input on
the potential impacts to navigation as a result of the proposed project
in order to determine whether the proposal meets the reasonable needs
of navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before June 20, 2013
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.
    Public meetings on the proposed CRC bridge will be held on Tuesday,
June 4, 2013, and Wednesday, June 5, 2013. If you wish to request an
oral or sign language interpreter, we must receive your request for one
on or before May 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0286 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
    The public meetings will be held on Tuesday, June 4, 2013, from 5
p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Red Lion Hotel on the River, 909 N Hayden Island
Drive, Portland, Oregon and on Wednesday, June 5, 2013, from 5 p.m. to
8 p.m. at the Hilton Vancouver, 301 West 6th St, Vancouver, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
or the public meetings, call or email Mr. Gary Greene, CRC Project
Officer, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
206-220-7079<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material on the
proposed CRC Bridge. All comments received, including comments received
at the public meetings, will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this notice (USCG-2013-0286) and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
insert (USCG-2013-0286) in the Search box, look for this notice in the
docket and click the Comment button next to it. 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 them by mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period.
    Viewing the comments: To view the comments go to http://www.regulations.gov, insert (USCG-2013-0286) in the Search box, then
click on the ``Open Docket Folder'' option. If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
    Copies of all written communications from the public meetings will
be available for review by interested persons after the meeting on the
online docket, USCG-2013-0286 via http://www.regulations.gov.
    Transcripts of the meetings will be available for public review
approximately 30 days after the meetings. All comments will be made
part of the public docket.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

    CRC is an entity formed by the Oregon Department of Transportation
and the Washington Department of Transportation, for the purpose of
improving the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor between Portland, Oregon and
Vancouver, Washington. CRC has proposed to replace the I-5 Bridge
across navigable waters of the United States by replacing the existing
lift bridge with a fixed bridge providing a vertical clearance of 116
feet above Columbia River Datum. A description of the project
(including related bridge permit application documents) and how it
would be completed can be found at the project's Web site: http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/.

    The proposed bridge project has been identified as a nationally or
regionally significant project under Executive Order 13604, which
requires agencies to coordinate and expedite the permitting and
environmental review process for specific projects. The existing bridge
is a lift bridge, which provides a vertical navigational clearance of
178 feet above the Columbia River Datum. The applicant, CRC, proposes
to decrease the vertical navigational clearance to 116 feet above the
Columbia River Datum by building a fixed bridge.
    As a structure over navigable waters of the United States, the
proposed bridge requires a Coast Guard Bridge Permit pursuant to the
General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525-533). As such, we are
requesting your comments on potential impacts to navigation related to
the project. A Navigation Impact Report (NIR) was submitted by CRC to
the Coast Guard as part of the bridge application. The NIR concluded
that a number of waterway users will be impacted by the proposed
project. As mitigation negotiations between the impacted users and CRC
remain ongoing, the Coast Guard must consider them burdened users in
its determination of the reasonable needs of navigation. In addition to
the reduced vertical clearance proposed by CRC, the upper turning
basin, located immediately downstream of the existing bridge, will be
permanently reduced approximately eighteen percent due to the location
of the proposed structures.
    During construction, CRC proposes to temporarily reduce the
vertical and horizontal clearances by varying amounts for approximately
five years. Specifically, for 21 months, both barge channels will be
completely blocked, requiring a bridge lift for any vertical clearance
greater than 39 feet above Columbia River Datum. Following that time
period, for an additional 27 months, the vertical clearance will be
restricted to approximately 100 feet above Columbia River Datum. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is reviewing a proposal by CRC to
realign the federal channel to accommodate the proposed project. A ship
simulation will be conducted by the USACE in early fall 2013 to
determine the impact on the navigation channel during and after
construction of the proposed project.
    Our publication of this notice begins a 45-day comment period and
provides information on how to participate in the process. The process
includes an opportunity to submit comment via the docket as outlined
below, or through oral comments at two public meetings. The Bridge
Permit Application, Navigation Impact Report, and other materials
referenced here, as well as additional documents available to assist
the public during this comment period, are available on the Columbia
River Crossing Web site at http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/Library/Type.aspx?CategoryID=13.
    The Coast Guard will hold two public meetings on the CRC
application (one in Portland, Oregon and one in Vancouver, Washington)
to provide an opportunity for oral comments. The specific times and
locations are as follows:
    (1) The first public meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 4, 2013,
from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Red Lion Hotel on the River, 909 N Hayden
Island Drive, Portland, Oregon
    (2) The second public meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 5,
2013, from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Hilton Vancouver, 301 West 6th St,
Vancouver, Washington.
    The purpose of these meetings is to consider an application
submitted by CRC for Coast Guard approval of the proposed bridge across
the Columbia River, mile 106.5, between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver,
Washington. All interested parties may present data, views and
comments, orally or in writing, concerning the impact of the proposed
bridge project on navigation.
    The public meetings will be informal. A representative of the Coast
Guard will preside, make a brief opening statement and announce the
procedure to be followed at the meetings. Attendees who request an
opportunity to present oral comments at a public meeting must sign up
to speak at the meeting site at the designated time of the meeting.
Speakers will be called in the order of receipt of the request.
Attendees at the meetings who wish to present oral comment, and have
not previously made a request to do so, will follow those having
submitted a request, as time permits. All oral presentations will be
limited to three minutes. The public meetings may end early if all
present wishing to speak have done so. Any oral comments provided at
the meetings will be transcribed and placed into the docket by the
Coast Guard. Written comments and related material may also be
submitted to Coast Guard personnel specified at that meeting for
placement into the docket by the Coast Guard.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact Mr. Gary Greene, CRC Project Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, at the
telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Any requests for an oral or
sign language interpreter must be received on or before May 26, 2013.

Authority

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 525 and 401(1),
33 CFR 115.60, and DHS Delegation 0170.1(67).

    Dated: May 1, 2013.
Brian L. Dunn,
Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-10685 Filed 5-1-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P