[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 33144-33151]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID FMCSA-2008-0137]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 56 individuals
for exemptions from the prohibition against persons with insulin-
treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable
these individuals with ITDM to operate commercial motor vehicles in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2008-0137 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your

comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78; Apr. 11, 2000).
This information is also available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
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 statutes also allow the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 56
individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption
from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will
evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether
granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety
mandated by the statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Timothy R. Abraham

    Mr. Abraham, age 37, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Abraham meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New
Hampshire.

Mark A. Arndt

    Mr. Arndt, 54, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Arndt meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's
License (CDL) from Illinois.

David D. Canady

    Mr. Canady, 53, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Canady meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Carolina.

William M. Camp

    Mr. Camp, 45, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Camp meets the requirements of
the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2008 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class C operator's license from Georgia.

Scott A. Cary

    Mr. Cary, 36, has had ITDM since 1980. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cary, meets the requirements of
the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.

Eugene W. Clark, Jr.

    Mr. Clark, 51, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Clark meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Wisconsin.

Jeffrey D. Crabtree

    Mr. Crabtree, 48, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Crabtree meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from New
Jersey.

David C. Crawford

    Mr. Crawford, 59, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning
in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring;
and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to
drive a CMV safely. Mr. Crawford meets the requirements of the vision
standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007
and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a
Class A CDL from Oregon.

David W. Dawley

    Mr. Dawley, 43, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dawley meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Illinois.

Adam F. Demeter

    Mr. Demeter, 45, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Demeter meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New
York.

Henry D. Dyer

    Mr. Dyer, 37, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dyer meets the requirements of
the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class B CDL from Georgia.

Stephen E. Foltz

    Mr. Foltz, 60, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Foltz meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Missouri.

Randall A. Ford

    Mr. Ford, 49, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ford meets the requirements of
the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Iowa.

Larry A. Fritz

    Mr. Fritz, 56, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fritz meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.

Clayton L. Funk

    Mr. Funk, 25, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Funk meets the requirements of
the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.

Bruce A. Gay

    Mr. Gay, 65, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gay meets the requirements of
the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.

Jarret L. Gerber

    Mr. Gerber, 38, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gerber meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Wisconsin.

Frederick G. Gillespie

    Mr. Gillespie, 55, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning
in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring;
and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to
drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gillespie meets the requirements of the vision
standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in
2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from California.

Jose L. Gonzales

    Mr. Gonzales, 37, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gonzales meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
California.

Kevin Gumbrell

    Mr. Gumbrell, 43, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gumbrell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Florida.

Danny E. Helton

    Mr. Helton, 46, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Helton meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Ohio.

Robert C. Hemeon

    Mr. Hemeon, 52, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hemeon meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Hampshire.

Marcus L. Jackson

    Mr. Jackson, 35, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jackson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class chauffeur's license from
Indiana.

Richard S. Jackson

    Mr. Jackson, 57, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jackson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Georgia.

William J. Jackson

    Mr. Jackson, 40, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jackson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
Iowa.

Alan L. Johnson

    Mr. Johnson, 45, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johnson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

Nathan S. Kelley

    Mr. Kelley, 33, has had ITDM since 1987. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kelley meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Alabama.

Angela M. King

    Ms. King, 24, has had ITDM since 1992. Her endocrinologist examined
her

in 2008 and certified that she has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of her diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. King meets the requirements of
the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist
examined her in 2007 and certified that she does not have diabetic
retinopathy. She holds a Class D operator's license from Illinois.

Scott M. Lowry

    Mr. Lowry, 30, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lowry meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Minnesota.

Ramon A. Mateo

    Mr. Mateo, 68, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mateo meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Illinois.

Robert L. Mills, Jr.

    Mr. Mills, 56, has had ITDM since 1980. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mills meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Ohio.

Richard Murphy

    Mr. Murphy, 30, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Murphy meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from New
Hampshire.

Edward F. Murray

    Mr. Murray, 49, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Murray meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Peter H. Palen, Jr.

    Mr. Palen, 56, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Palen meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Maine.

Travis L. Ploman

    Mr. Ploman, 38, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ploman meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.

Nicholas W. Pomnitz

    Mr. Pomnitz, 24, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pomnitz meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
New Jersey.

Thomas G. Riley, Jr.

    Mr. Riley, 56, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Riley meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Tennessee.

Melvin D. Robertson

    Mr. Robertson, 54, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Robertson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
California.

Robert A. Roskamp

    Mr. Roskamp, 70, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Roskamp meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.

Brandon M. Ross

    Mr. Ross, 29, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ross meets the requirements of
the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2008 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class D operator's license from North Dakota.

Ulysses A. Santiago, Jr.

    Mr. Santiago, 54, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Santiago meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class E operator's license from
Louisiana.

Jeremy S. Samiec

    Mr. Samiec, 29, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Samiec meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Arizona.

Patrick D. Schiller

    Mr. Schiller, 70, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schiller meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.

Bruce D. Schmoyer

    Mr. Schmoyer, 59, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schmoyer meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Joseph E. Sobiech

    Mr. Sobiech, 50, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sobiech meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.

John J. Sorce

    Mr. Sorce, 67, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sorce meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Illinois.

Donald J. Stabler

    Mr. Stabler, 31, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stabler meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Indiana.

Ronald L. Stigall

    Mr. Stigall, 38, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stigall meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Arkansas.

Cory C. Struble

    Mr. Struble, 35, has had ITDM since 1985. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Struble meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from North
Dakota.

James L. Swedenburg, Jr.

    Mr. Swedenburg, 51, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Swedenburg meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Lawrence M. Tanner

    Mr. Tanner, 28, has had ITDM since 1981. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tanner meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's
license from Nevada.

Robert D. Tarkington

    Mr. Tarkington, 42, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tarkington meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Alaska.

Richard L. Thistle

    Mr. Thistle, 49, has had ITDM since 1975. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thistle meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Massachusetts.

Travis A. Udulutch

    Mr. Udulutch, 31, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Udulutch meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Wisconsin.

Joshua C. Webb

    Mr. Webb, 30, has had ITDM since 1984. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Webb meets the requirements of
the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class D operator's license from Arkansas.

Robert C. Whitney

    Mr. Whitney, 54, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Whitney meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this Notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates
section of the Notice.
    FMCSA notes that Section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires the Secretary to revise its
diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR
52441).\1\ The revision must provide for individual assessment of
drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria
described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Dated: June 4, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-13147 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9846-9849]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3801]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63914; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC to Expand the $2.50 Strike Price Program

February 15, 2011.
    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 February 2, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\4\ proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1012, Series of
Options Open for Trading, to expand the $2.50 Strike Price Program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33063 (October 18,
1993), 58 FR 54619 (October 18, 1993) (SR-Phlx-93-18) (a rule change
to list strike price intervals of $2.50 or greater for individual
stock options). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52961
(December 15, 2005), 70 FR 76095 (December 15, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-
77) (a rule change to allow list options with $2.50 strike price
intervals for options with strike prices between $50 and $75); and
55338 (February 23, 2007), 72 FR 9371 (March 1, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-
04) (a rule change to list LEAPS at $2.50 strike price intervals).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/Filings/, at the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov.

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

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

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

1.Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to expand the current
$2.50 Strike Price Program (``Program'') \6\ to permit the listing of
options with $2.50 strike price intervals for options with strike
prices between $50 and $100, provided the $2.50 strike price intervals
are no more than $10 from the closing price of the underlying stock in
the primary market.\7\ Additionally, the Exchange proposes to increase
the number of option classes on individual stocks for which the
intervals of strike prices will be $2.50 to 60 options classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Initially adopted in 1995 as a pilot program, the options
exchanges at that time were permitted to list options with $2.50
strike price intervals up to $50 on a total of up to 100 option
classes. In 1998, the pilot program was expanded and permanently
approved to allow the options exchanges collectively to select up to
200 option classes on which to list options with $ 2.50 strike price
intervals up to $ 50. Of the current 200 options classes eligible
for the Program, 46 have been allocated to the Exchange. In
addition, each options exchange is permitted to list options with
$2.50 strike price intervals on any option class that another
options exchange selects under its Program. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 35993 (July 19, 1995), 60 FR 38073 (July 25, 1995)
(approving File Nos. SR-Phlx-95-08, SR-Amex-95-12, SR-PSE-95-07, SR-
CBOE-95-19, and SR-NYSE-95-12); and 40662 (November 12, 1998), 63 FR
64297 (November 19, 1998) (approving File Nos. SR-Amex-98-21, SR-
CBOE-98-29, SR-PCX-98-31, and SR-Phlx-98-26).
    \7\ The term ``primary market'' is defined in Exchange Rule 1000
in respect of an underlying stock or exchange-traded fund share as
the principal market in which the underlying stock or exchange-
traded fund share is traded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Exchange Rule 1012 at Commentary .05 permits the listing
of options with $2.50 strike price intervals for options with strike
prices between $50 and $75.\8\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
amend Commentary .05 to Exchange Rule 1012 to amend the current text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Commentary .05 of Exchange Rule 1012 also permits strike
price intervals of $5.00 or greater where the strike price is
greater than $25 but less than $200; and $2.50 or greater where the
strike price is $25 or less and $10 or greater where the strike
price is $200 or more, except as provided otherwise in Rule 1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, consider a hypothetical where Caterpillar, Inc.
(``CAT'') was trading at $81. With approximately one month remaining
until expiration, and with a front month at-the-money put option (the
80 strike) trading at approximately $1.30, the investor would be able
to purchase a $77.50 strike put at an estimated $.60 per contract.
Today, the next available strike of a one month put option is the 75
strike. While the 75 strike put would certainly trade at a lesser price
than the 80 strike put,\9\ the protection offered would only take
effect with a 7.40% decline in the market as opposed to a 4.30% decline
in the market. The additional choice would provide the investor an
additional to hedge exposure (the opportunity to hedge with a reduced
outlay) and thereby minimize risk if there were a decline in the stock
price of CAT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The 75 strike put would trade at $.30 in this example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example would be if an investor desired to sell call
options to hedge the exposure of an underlying stock position and
enhance yield. Consider a hypothetical where CAT was trading at $81 and
the second month (two months remaining) of a recently out-of-the-money
call option (the 85 strike) was trading at approximately $2.35. If the
investor where to sell the 85 call against an existing stock position,
the investor could yield a return of approximately 2.90% over a two
month period or an annualized return of 17.4%. By providing an
additional $2.50 strike interval above $75, the investor would have the
opportunity to sell the 82.50 strike instead of the 85 strike. If the
85 strike call were trading at $2.35, the 82.50 strike call would trade
at approximately 3.30. By selling the 82.50 strike call at 3.30 against
an existing stock position, the investor could yield a 4.07% return
over a two month period or an annualized 24.40% return. Therefore, an
additional choice of a $2.50 strike interval could afford varying
yields to the investor.
    The Exchange believes that the Program has to date created
additional trading opportunities for investors, thereby benefiting the
marketplace. The existence of $2.50 strike prices with strike intervals
above $75 affords investors the ability to more closely tailor
investment strategies to the precise movement of the underlying
security and meet their investment, trading and risk management
requirements.
    The Exchange is also proposing to increase the number of option
classes on individual stocks for which the intervals of strike prices
will be $2.50 to 60 options classes. Currently, the Exchange may select
up to 46 options classes on individual stocks for which the intervals
of strike prices will be $2.50. Initially adopted in 1995 as a pilot
program, the options exchanges at that time were permitted to list
options with $2.50 strike price intervals up to $50 on a total of up to
100 option classes.\10\ In 1998, the pilot program was expanded and
permanently approved to allow the options exchanges collectively to
select up to 200 option classes on which to list options with $2.50
strike price intervals

up to $50.\11\ Of the current 200 options classes eligible for the
Program, 46 have been allocated to the Exchange.\12\ In addition, each
options exchange is permitted to list options with $2.50 strike price
intervals on any option class that another options exchange selects
under its program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35993 (July 19,
1995), 60 FR 38073 (July 25, 1995) (approving File Nos. SR-Phlx-95-
08, SR-Amex-95-12, SR-PSE-95-07, SR-CBOE-95-19, and SR-NYSE-95-12).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40662 (November 12,
1998), 63 FR 64297 (November 19, 1998) (approving File Nos. SR-Amex-
98-21, SR-CBOE-98-29, SR-PCX-98-31, and SR-Phlx-98-26).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40662 (November 12,
1998), 63 FR 64297 (November 19, 1998) (approving File Nos. SR-Amex-
98-21, SR-CBOE-98-29, SR-PCX-98-31, and SR-Phlx-98-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 1998, the 200 options classes have not been expanded,
although increasingly more companies have completed initial public
offerings from 1998 through 2010. Additionally, significantly more
options classes are trading in 2010 as compared to 1998. The Exchange
proposes to increase its allocation from 46 to 60 \13\ options classes
to accommodate investor requests for $2.50 strikes in certain options
classes. The Exchange believes that offering additional options classes
would benefit investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Currently, The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'') has an allocation of 60 options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe that this proposal would
have a negative impact on the marketplace. The Exchange would compare
this proposal with the $1 Strike Price expansion, wherein the Exchange
expanded its $1 Strike Price Program from 55 individual stocks to 150
individual stocks on which an option series may be listed at $1 strike
price intervals.\14\ The Exchange believes that this proposal, wherein
the Exchange is proposing to increase its allocation from 46 to 60
options classes is substantially less than the $1 Strike Price Program
increase and therefore would have less impact than that program, which
has not had any negative impact on the market in terms of proliferation
of quote volume or fragmentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62420 (June 30,
2010), 75 FR 39593 (July 9, 2010) (SR-Phlx 2010-72).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 system capacity to
handle the potential additional traffic associated with the listing and
trading of classes on individual stocks in the $2.50 Strike Price
Program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act\16\ in particular, in that it is designed 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.
The Exchange believes that the effect of the proposed expansion on the
marketplace would not result in a material proliferation of quote
volume or concerns with fragmentation. In addition, the Exchange
believes that it has the necessary system capacity to handle the
potential additional traffic associated with the listing and trading of
classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather, the Exchange believes the $2.50 Strike Price Program
proposal would provide the investing public and other market
participants increased opportunities to better manage their risk
exposure. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal to
expand the Program to allow the listing of options with $2.50 strike
price intervals for options with strike prices between $50 and $100
should further benefit investors and the market by providing greater
trading opportunities for those underlying stocks that have low
volatility and thus trade in a narrow range.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-15. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-2011-15 and should be
submitted on or before March 15, 2011.

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

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3801 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/21/14

FROM: 		Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO:CLEAN POWER PLAN FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS; DOCKET ID: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:DISCUSSION OF THE CLEAN POWER Plan with Florida Department of Environmental Protection

SUMMARY:
REGION 4 PROVIDED INFORMATION ON THE CLEAN POWER PLAN to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection on August 20, 2014.  The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
was proposed on June 2, 2014.
ATTENDEES:

EPA
Beverly Banister/EPA R4
Gregg Worley/EPA R4
Jeaneanne Gettle/EPA R4
Ken Mitchell/EPA R4
Keith Goff/EPA R4
Todd Rinck/EPA R4
EPA OAR OAQPS and OAP Staff

External Stakeholders
Paula Cobb/Florida DEP
Other DEP staff

ATTACHMENT

Advance Questions for Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with the Florida DEP on 8/20/14

   1. Rate to mass goal.  Can you provide more insight into how this works (e.g., how to calculate the "business as usual" case)?

   2. IPM Modeling.  Various questions about the modeling runs.  For example, are all the files on the website?  What were the underlying NEEDS (and other) data used in the IPM modeling?  (This issue can be followed-up by a staff-to-staff in-depth discussion.)

   3. Non-affected units.  How can states include such units toward showing compliance (or can they)?  How do you incorporate non-affected units into the state plan if they only become affected after the State Plan is submitted?  Would such units affect the state's goal?

   4. Need more information on developing emissions projections (both for compliance and for developing rate-to-mass calculations).

   5. When mistakes are found in state-specific data used to calculate the goal, how should that information be communicated to EPA (in addition to being submitted to the docket)?

   6. "Capacity".  The proposal seems to use multiple approaches to establishing "capacity" for units in a state (i.e., nameplate vs other types of capacity).  Was that intentional and, if so, why?

   7. Dispatch to NGCC.  Did EPA consider limitations in infrastructure when establishing this number for goal setting?  For example, did EPA consider issues such as gas transport limitations and limitations in grid transmission?

   8. Renewable Energy.  Can a state include alternate energy sources in compliance when the alternative energy may not be considered renewable energy (e.g., can you count waste-to-energy projects toward compliance)?  Also, how would biomass be treated?

   9. What constraints are there in using nuclear up-rates in showing compliance?  For example, if an up-rate occurred in 2012, can that count towards showing compliance?


(including Floor Brokers who do not hit the ADV thresholds) trading via
open outcry (and indeed, this increased volume could make it possible
for some Floor Brokers to hit the ADV thresholds). The Exchange
believes the proposed discounts are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all Floor Brokers are eligible. While the
Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how many and which
TPHs will satisfy the various thresholds under the ADV Discount, the
Exchange anticipated approximately 3 Floor Brokers to receive a rebate
under the program. To date, 2 Floor Brokers have received a rebate
under the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Furthermore, post-migration the Exchange will not have
Voluntary Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed MM EAP Appointment fees are
reasonable in light of the Exchange's elimination of appointment costs
tied to Trading Permits. Other exchanges also offer a similar structure
with respect to fees for appointment classes.\89\ Additionally, the
proposed MM EAP Appointment fee structure results in approximately 36%
electronic MMs paying lower fees for trading permit and appointment
costs. For example, in order to have the ability to make electronic
markets in every class on the Exchange, a Market-Maker would need 1
Market-Maker Trading Permit and 37 Appointment Units post-migration.
Under, the current pricing structure, in order for a Market-Maker to
quote the entire universe of available classes, a Market-Maker would
need 33 Appointment Credits, thus necessitating 33 Market-Maker Trading
Permits. With respect to fees for Trading Permits and Appointment Unit
Fees, under the proposed pricing structure, the cost for a TPH wishing
to quote the entire universe of available classes is approximately 29%
less (if they are not eligible for the MM TP Sliding Scale) or
approximately 2% less (if they are eligible for the MM TP Sliding
Scale). To further demonstrate the potential cost savings/value added,
the Exchange is providing the following examples comparing current
Market-Maker connectivity and access fees to projected connectivity and
access fees for different scenarios. The Exchange notes that the below
examples not only compare Trading Permit and Appointment Unit costs,
but also the cost incurred for logical connectivity and bandwidth.
Particularly, the first example demonstrates the total minimum cost
that would be incurred today in order for a Market-Maker to have the
same amount of capacity as a Market-Maker post-migration that would
have only 1 MM EAP and 1 Logical Port (i.e., 15,000 quotes/3 sec). The
Exchange is also providing examples that demonstrate the costs of (i) a
Market-Maker with small capacity needs and appointment unit of 1.0 and
(ii) a Market-Maker with large capacity needs and appointment cost/unit
of 30.0:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8. Membership Fees, B, Streaming
Quote Trader (``SQT'') Fees and C. Remote Market Maker Organization
(RMO) Fee.
    \90\ The maximum quoting bandwidth that may be applied to a
single Login Id is 80,000 quotes/3 sec.

       Market-Maker That Needs Capacity of 15,000/Quotes/3 Seconds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Current fee       Post-migration fee
                                    structure             structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permit/MM EAP............  $5,000..............  $5,000.
Appointment Unit Cost.......  N/A (1 appointment    $0 (1 appointment
                               cost).                unit).
CMI Login/Logical Port......  $750 \90\...........  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...........  $5,500 ([email protected]$2,750)...  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available...  15,000 quotes/3 sec.  15,000 quotes/3 sec.
Total Cost..................  $11,250.............  $5,750.

Total Cost per message        $0.75/quote/3 sec...  $0.38/quote/3 sec.
 allowed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Market Maker That Needs Capacity of No More Than 5,000 Quotes/3 Secs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Current fee       Post-migration fee
                                    structure             structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permit/MM EAP............  $5,000..............  $5,000.
Appointment Unit Cost.......  N/A (1 appointment    $0 (1 appointment
                               cost).                unit).
CMI Login/Logical Port......  $750................  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...........  0...................  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available...  5,000 quotes/3 sec..  15,000 quotes/3 sec.
Total Cost..................  $5,750..............  $5,750.
Total Cost per message        $1.15/quote/3 sec...  $0.38/quote/3 sec.
 allowed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Market-Maker That Needs 30 Appointment Units and Capacity of 300,000
                              Quotes/3 Sec
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Current fee       Post-migration fee
                                    structure             structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permits/MM EAP...........  $105,000 (30 MM       $5,000.
                               Permits assumes
                               eligible for MM TP
                               Sliding Scale) \91\.
Appointment Units Cost......  N/A (30 appointment   $95,500 (30
                               costs).               appointment units).
CMI Logins/BOE Bulk Port....  $3,000 ([email protected]$750) \92\  $3,000 (2 BOE
                                                     [email protected]$1,500).
Bandwidth Packets...........  $82,500 ([email protected]$2750)..  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available...  300,000 quotes/3 sec  450,000 quotes/3
                                                     sec. *
Total Cost..................  $190,500............  $103,500.
Total Cost per message        $0.63/quotes/3 sec..  $0.23/quote/3 sec.
 allowed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Possible performance degradation at 15,000 messages per second.

    The Exchange believes its proposal to provide separate fees for
Tier Appointments for MM EAPs and MM Floor Permits as the Exchange will
be issuing separate Trading Permits for on-floor and off-floor market
making as discussed above. The proposal to eliminate the volume
threshold for the electronic SPX Tier Appointment fee is reasonable as
no TPHs in the past several months have electronically traded more than
1 SPX contract or less than 100 SPX contracts per month and therefore
will not be negatively impacted by the proposed change, and because it
aligns the electronic SPX Tier Appointment with the floor SPX Tier
Appointment, which has no volume threshold. The Exchange believes the
proposal to increase the electronic volume thresholds for VIX and RUT
are reasonable as those that do not regularly trade VIX or RUT in open-
outcry will continue to not be assessed the fee. In fact, any TPH that
executes more than 100 contracts but less than 1,000 in the respective
classes will no longer have to pay the proposed Tier Appointment fee.
As noted above, the Exchange is not proposing to change the amounts
assessed for each Tier Appointment Fee. The proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply
uniformly to all TPHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ For simplicity of the comparison, this assumes no
appointments in SPX, VIX, RUT, XEO or OEX (which are not included in
the TP Sliding Scale).
    \92\ Given the bandwidth limit per Login Id of 80,000 quotes/3
sec, example assumes Market-Maker purchases minimum amount of Login
IDs to accommodate 300,000 quotes/3 sec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Permit Holder Regulatory Fee
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate the Trading
Permit Holder Regulatory fee because TPHs will not pay this fee and
because the Exchange is restructuring its Trading Permit structure. The
Exchange notes that although it will less closely be covering the costs
of regulating all TPHs and performing its regulatory responsibilities,
it still has sufficient funds to do so. The proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply
uniformly to all TPHs.
    The Exchange believes corresponding changes to eliminate obsolete
language in connection with the proposed changes described above and to
relocate and reorganize its fees in connection with the proposed
changes maintain clarity in the Fees Schedule and alleviate potential
confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, protecting investors and the public interest.

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.
    With respect to intra-market competition, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change would place certain market
participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to
other market participants or affect the ability of such market
participants to compete. As stated above, the Exchange does not believe
its proposed pricing will impose a barrier to entry to smaller
participants and notes that its proposed connectivity pricing is
associated with relative usage of the various market participants. For
example, market participants with modest capacity needs can buy the
less expensive 1 Gb Physical Port and utilize only one Logical Port.
Moreover, the pricing for 1 Gb Physical Ports and FIX/BOE Logical Ports
are no different than are assessed today (i.e., $1,500 and $750 per
port, respectively), yet the capacity and access associated with each
is greatly increasing. While pricing may be increased for larger
capacity physical and logical ports, such options provide far more
capacity and are purchased by those that consume more resources from
the network. Accordingly, the proposed

connectivity fees do not favor certain categories of market
participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition;
rather, the allocation reflects the network resources consumed by the
various size of market participants--lowest bandwidth consuming members
pay the least, and highest bandwidth consuming members pays the most,
particularly since higher bandwidth consumption translates to higher
costs to the Exchange.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As
discussed in the Statutory Basis section above, options market
participants are not forced to connect to (or purchase market data
from) all options exchanges, as shown by the number of TPHs at Cboe and
shown by the fact that there are varying number of members across each
of Cboe's Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive environment, and its ability to price access and
connectivity is constrained by competition among exchanges and third
parties. As discussed, there are other options markets of which market
participants may connect to trade options. There is also a possible
range of alternative strategies, including routing to the exchange
through another participant or market center or taking the exchange's
data indirectly. For example, there are 15 other U.S. options
exchanges, which the Exchange must consider in its pricing discipline
in order to compete for market participants. In this competitive
environment, market participants are free to choose which competing
exchange or reseller to use to satisfy their business needs. As a
result, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair
competition among national securities exchanges. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \93\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \94\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \94\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-005 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-2020-005. 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. 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-2020-005, and should be submitted
on or before March 10, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03093 Filed 2-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 15707-15708]
[DOCID:fr30mr10-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of FERC Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Board
of Directors/Members Committee Meeting

March 23, 2010.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of its staff may attend the meeting of the Southwest Power Pool
(SPP) Board of Directors/Members, as noted below. Their attendance is
part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.

SPP Board of Directors/Members Committee Meeting

    March 31, 2010 (10:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m.), Hyatt Regency DFW, N.
International Parkway Terminal C, DFW Airport, TX 75261.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

Docket No. EL09-40, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER06-451, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-923, Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1307, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1308, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1357, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1358, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1359, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1419, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-35, Tallgrass Transmission LLC
Docket No. ER09-36, Prairie Wind Transmission LLC
Docket No. ER09-659, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1050, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1254, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1255, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1397, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1716, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.,
Docket No. ER10-352, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-5, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-60, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-61, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

Docket No. OA08-104, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-664, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-678, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-680, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-681, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-692, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-693, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-694, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-696, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-697, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-698, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-700, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-738, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-739, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-754, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-760, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-761, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-762, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-773, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-795, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6980 Filed 3-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P