[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71810-71813]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27561]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

12 CFR Part 43

[Docket No. OCC-2019-0012]

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 244

[Docket No. OP-1688]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 373

RIN 3064-ZA07

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

12 CFR Part 1234

[Notice No. 2021-N-14]

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 246

[Release No. 34-93768]

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Part 267

[FR-6172-N-04]

Credit Risk Retention--Notification of Determination of Review

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC);
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (Commission); Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA); and
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

ACTION: Determination of results of interagency review.

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

SUMMARY: The OCC, Board, FDIC, Commission, FHFA, and HUD (the agencies)
are providing notice of the determination of the results of the

review of the definition of qualified residential mortgage, the
community-focused residential mortgage exemption, and the exemption for
qualifying three-to-four unit residential mortgage loans, in each case
as currently set forth in the Credit Risk Retention Regulations (as
defined below) as adopted by the agencies. After completing the review,
the agencies have determined not to propose any change at this time to
the definition of qualified residential mortgage, the community-focused
residential mortgage exemption, or the exemption for qualifying three-
to-four unit residential mortgage loans.

DATES: December 20, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    OCC: Kevin Korzeniewski, Counsel, Chief Counsel's Office, (202)
649-5490; Maria Gloria Cobas,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Senior Financial
Economist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street
SW, Washington, DC 20219.
    Board: Flora H. Ahn, Special Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, David W.
Alexander, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-287, or Matthew D. Suntag, Senior
Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Legal Division; Sean Healey, Lead Financial
Institution Policy Analyst,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Division of Supervision and
Regulation; Karen Pence, Deputy Associate Director, Division of
Research & Statistics,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Nikita Pastor, Senior Counsel,
Division of Consumer & Community Affairs<PHONE_NUMBER>; Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW,
Washington, DC 20551.
    FDIC: Rae-Ann Miller, Senior Deputy Director,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Kathleen M. Russo, Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]; Phillip E.
Sloan, Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
    Commission: Arthur Sandel, Special Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, in the
Office of Structured Finance, Division of Corporation Finance; or
Chandler Lutz, Economist,<PHONE_NUMBER>, in the Office of Risk
Analysis, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
    FHFA: Ron Sugarman, Principal Policy Analyst, Office of Capital
Policy,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], or Peggy K. Balsawer,
Associate General Counsel, Office of General Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected], Federal Housing Finance Agency, Constitution
Center, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. For TTY/TRS users with
hearing and speech disabilities, dial 711 and ask to be connected to
any of the contact numbers above.
    HUD: Kurt G. Usowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic
Affairs, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 451 7th Street
SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> (this is not a
toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may
access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Credit Risk Retention Regulations are
codified at 12 CFR part 43; 12 CFR part 244; 12 CFR part 373; 17 CFR
part 246; 12 CFR part 1234; and 24 CFR part 267 (the Credit Risk
Retention Regulations). The Credit Risk Retention Regulations require
the OCC, Board, FDIC and Commission, in consultation with the FHFA and
HUD, to commence a review of the following provisions of the Credit
Risk Retention Regulations no later than December 24, 2019: (1) The
definition of qualified residential mortgage (QRM) in section _.13 of
the Credit Risk Retention Regulations; (2) the community-focused
residential mortgage exemption in section _.19(f) of the Credit Risk
Retention Regulations; and (3) the exemption for qualifying three-to-
four unit residential mortgage loans in section _.19(g) of the Credit
Risk Retention Regulations (collectively, the subject residential
mortgage provisions).
    Notification announcing the commencement of the review was
published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2019 (84 FR 70073).
Notification announcing the agencies' decision to extend to June 20,
2021, the period for completion of the review and publication of
notification disclosing determination of the review was published in
the Federal Register on June 30, 2020 (85 FR 39099). On July 22, 2021,
the agencies published another notification in the Federal Register,
announcing their decision to extend the period to complete the review
further to December 20, 2021 (86 FR 38607).
    The agencies have completed their review of the subject residential
mortgage provisions and this notification discloses the agencies'
determination as a result of the review.

Overview

    Section 15G of the Securities Exchange Act, as added by section
941(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(Dodd-Frank Act), required the Board, FDIC, OCC (collectively, the
Federal banking agencies) and the Commission, together with, in the
case of the securitization of any ``residential mortgage asset,'' HUD
and FHFA, to jointly prescribe regulations that (i) require a
securitizer to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of
any asset that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed
security (ABS), transfers, sells, or conveys to a third party, and (ii)
prohibit a securitizer from directly or indirectly hedging or otherwise
transferring the credit risk that the securitizer is required to retain
under section 15G and the agencies' implementing rules.\1\ Section 941
of the Dodd-Frank Act also provides that a securitizer shall not be
required to retain any part of the credit risk for an asset that is
transferred, sold, or conveyed through the issuance of ABS interests by
the securitizer, if all of the assets that collateralize the ABS
interests are QRMs, as that term is jointly defined by the agencies.
Section 941 provides that the definition of QRM can be ``no broader
than'' the definition of a ``qualified mortgage'' (QM) as that term is
defined under section 129C of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA),\2\ as
amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, and regulations adopted thereunder.\3\
The agencies decided to align the definition of QRM with the definition
of QM.\4\ The Credit Risk Retention Regulations define QRM to mean a
QM, as defined under section 129C of TILA and Regulation Z issued
thereunder at 12 CFR part 1026, as amended from time to time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-11(b), (c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B)(i).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 1639c.
    \3\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-11 (e)(4)(C).
    \4\ See 79 FR 77740 (Dec. 24, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the Credit Risk Retention Regulations, the agencies are
required to review the definition of QRM periodically to assess
developments in the residential mortgage market, including the results
of the statutorily required five-year review by the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) of the ability-to-repay rules and the QM
definition. In conducting the review (the commencement of which was
announced on December 20, 2019) and reaching their conclusions, the
agencies considered what has been learned since 2014 about whether the
loan and borrower characteristics specified in the QRM definition are
predictive of a lower risk of default and also assessed how mortgage
credit access conditions have changed since 2014, using data from the
date on which the Credit Risk Retention Regulations were announced,
October 22, 2014, through December 31, 2019 (the review period). Among
other things, the agencies analyzed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the
Enterprises) and non-Enterprise loan-level mortgage

origination and performance data (including data on originations,
defaults, and loan and borrower characteristics), held discussions with
market participants, and reviewed academic research, policy research
prepared by research and advocacy organizations, and the results of the
CFPB's Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Rule Assessment Report
issued in 2019.\5\ The analysis also considered the effects on default
risk of additional loan and borrower characteristics not included in
the QRM definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Available at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_ability-to-repay-qualified-mortgage_assessment-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis confirmed that the loan and borrower characteristics
specified in the QM definition in effect during the review period were
predictive of a lower risk of default. In addition, the agencies found
that, while credit conditions have improved since 2014, they remain
tight relative to longer-term norms.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Measures of mortgage credit availability, such as those
produced by the Urban Institute (www.urban.org), suggest that credit
availability during the review period was tight relative to levels
in the early 2000s. Tight credit conditions generally refer to
periods of reduced availability of credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After analyzing those data, reviewing those analyses and
considering the importance of maintaining broad access to credit, the
agencies have decided, at this time, not to propose to amend the
definition of QRM, the community-focused residential mortgage
exemption, or the exemption for qualifying three-to-four unit
residential mortgage loans.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Credit Risk Retention Regulations require the agencies
to conduct a review of the subject residential mortgage provisions
upon the request of any agency, specifying the reason for such
request. Accordingly, the agencies may conduct a further review of
the subject residential mortgage provisions at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comments

    In response to the notification of commencement of the review,
which included a request for comment, the agencies received one comment
(on behalf of 37 organizations) prior to the end of the comment period.
The comment requested that the agencies defer the review until after
the CFPB completed its then-proposed rulemaking to make changes to the
QM definition, which would automatically modify the QRM definition to
the extent no changes are made to the definition.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The letter noted that an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking had been issued by the CFPB and that the CFPB was
expected to follow with a notice of proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the agencies note that the review is intended to
consider the definition of QRM in light of changes in mortgage and
securitization market conditions and practices and how the QRM
definition has affected residential mortgage underwriting and
securitization of residential mortgage loans under evolving market
conditions during the review period. The CFPB did not issue the final
QM changes until December 10, 2020, well after the review period.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The agencies nonetheless reviewed what were, at the time of
the review, the CFPB's changes to the general definition of a QM
(from a definition based, in part, on debt-to-income (DTI) to one
based on loan pricing). Based upon the information provided by the
CFPB to support the changes, the agencies concluded that these
changes, if implemented, were not likely to significantly affect the
overall impact of the QRM definition on the mortgage market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2021, the agencies received a second comment letter (on
behalf of six organizations), expressing support for the continued
alignment of the definitions of QRM and QM.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ While this comment letter also praised the agencies for
delaying the issuance of the review determination until the CFPB
changes were finalized, as noted above, the agencies did not delay
the issuance of their determination to consider those changes as
those changes occurred outside of the review period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of QRM

    The agencies' decision in 2014 to equate the QRM and QM definitions
in the Credit Risk Retention Regulations was based on two main factors.
First, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that the definition of QRM ``tak[e]
into consideration underwriting and product features that historical
loan performance data indicate result in a lower risk of default.''
\11\ Second, the Dodd-Frank Act specified that the QRM definition could
not be broader than the QM definition, and the agencies were concerned
that a QRM definition that was narrower than the QM definition could
exacerbate already-tight mortgage credit conditions existing at that
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-11(e)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the current review of the definition of QRM, the agencies
considered whether the loan and borrower characteristics specified in
the QM definition are predictive of a lower risk of default and how
mortgage credit conditions have changed since 2014. The agencies
confirmed that the QRM definition that was in effect for the review
period--with the requirement that debt-to-income (DTI) ratios generally
not exceed 43 percent--was predictive of lower default rates.
    The agencies used loan-level mortgage origination and performance
data on Enterprise and non-Enterprise loans in the review.\12\ The
agencies followed the performance of loans originated between 2012 and
2015 and found that, after four years, loans with a DTI ratio greater
than 43 percent were more likely to have become 90-days delinquent than
loans with lower DTI ratios. The review also confirmed that the
measurement of DTI had improved from when the analysis was last
conducted, with a greater proportion of full documentation mortgage
loans in the dataset in 2019 than in 2014. In the review, the agencies
also considered the effects of additional loan and borrower
characteristics on default risk.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Mortgage servicing data from the Enterprises was used for
this analysis, and the Commission staff contributed its analysis
using mortgage servicing data from CoreLogic.
    \13\ The agencies confirmed that loan-to-value (LTV) ratio and
credit score, which the agencies considered in the 2014 rulemaking
but did not incorporate into the QRM definition, also predict
default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies also considered whether the QRM definition, as aligned
with the QM definition, affected the availability of credit. While
credit conditions had improved since 2014, they remained tight during
the review period relative to longer-term norms.\14\ However, the
agencies determined that the QRM definition did not appear to be a
material factor in credit conditions during the review period, in part
because so much of the market was funded through Enterprise and Ginnie
Mae securitizations.\15\ More generally, the agencies concluded from
the review that risk retention remains an effective tool for aligning
the interests of securitizers, originators, and investors, and reducing
default risk on certain loans. In addition, the Credit Risk Retention
Regulations do not appear to be weighing materially on mortgage credit
availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Measures of mortgage credit availability, such as those
produced by the Urban Institute, suggest that credit availability
during the review period was tight relative to levels in the early
2000s.
    \15\ The Enterprises are subject to risk retention, but benefit
from a provision in the Credit Risk Retention Regulations that
allows their full guarantee of principal and interest on mortgage
backed securities to count as an eligible form of risk retention
while they are under conservatorship or receivership and have
capital support from the U.S. Treasury. In contrast to the
Enterprises, Ginnie Mae, a wholly owned U.S. Government corporation
within HUD, is exempt from risk retention pursuant to statutory
direction in the Dodd-Frank Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78o-11(c)(1)(G)(ii)
and (e)(3)(B).
    According to estimates by Inside Mortgage Finance and the Urban
Institute, the annual share of the dollar volume of first-lien
mortgage originations that were either acquired by the Enterprises
or securitized through an FHA or VA program has ranged from about 62
to 76 percent over the period 2015 to 2020(https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/104602/july-chartbook-2021_2.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the agencies considered whether the QRM definition, as
aligned with the QM definition, affected the securitization market. As
the agencies anticipated, the QRM definition contributed to the
bifurcation of the

private-label securitization market between securitizations of ``prime/
jumbo'' loans \16\ which typically meet the characteristics of QM and
are, therefore, exempt from risk retention as QRM, and securitizations
of ``non-QM'' loans that are not QRM and, therefore, generally not
exempt from risk retention. However, according to industry sources, the
market for securitizations of non-QM loans was quite competitive
through the end of 2019, which suggests that risk retention did not
materially affect the ability of issuers in this market to obtain
capital needed for mortgage originations.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ These securitizations are typically collateralized by jumbo
mortgages that are ineligible for purchase by the Enterprises
because they exceed the conventional loan limits set by the FHFA and
by prime loans that are offered to highly qualified borrowers. These
mortgages typically meet the QRM standards.
    \17\ See, e.g., ``On the Rise: Trading Desks Focusing on Non-QM
Paper.'' Inside MBS & ABS, Inside Mortgage Finance Publications,
2019.30, 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the foregoing, the agencies are not proposing to amend
the definition of QRM at this time.

Community-Focused Residential Mortgages

    Community-focused residential mortgages are mortgages made by
community development financial institutions (CDFIs), community housing
development organizations, certain non-profits, or certain secondary
financing providers, or through a state housing finance agency (HFA)
program. These entities frequently make mortgage loans using flexible
underwriting criteria that are not compatible with the TILA ability-to-
repay requirements. To ensure continued borrower access to these loan
programs, the CFPB exempted these loans from the TILA ability-to-repay
requirement and, as a result, such loans are unable to be made as QMs.
Similarly, the agencies provided a separate exemption for these loans
from the risk retention requirement. The agencies justified this
exemption by citing the ``strong underwriting procedures to maximize
affordability and borrower success in keeping their homes'' and noted
that the exemption ``serve[s] the public interest because these
entities have stated public mission purposes to make safe, sustainable
loans available primarily to [low-to moderate-income] communities.''
\18\ In the years since adoption of the Credit Risk Retention
Regulations, only a few CDFIs have used this exemption.\19\ While HFAs
have not used this exemption, discussions with market participants
revealed that private securitization could become a more attractive
option if a state HFA needed to issue bonds in excess of its tax-exempt
allotment. Therefore, the agencies, at this time, are not proposing to
amend the exemption for community-focused residential mortgages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 79 FR 77602, 77694 (December 24, 2014).
    \19\ The agencies identified seven securitizations that relied
upon this exemption since 2019; these securitizations funded
approximately $610 million in community-focused residential
mortgages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three-to-Four Unit Residential Mortgages

    Mortgages that are collateralized by three-to-four-unit properties
are defined as ``business purpose'' loans rather than consumer credit
transactions under TILA, and as such are not subject to the ability-to-
repay requirement, and are unable to qualify as QMs. The agencies
recognized that securitization markets typically pool mortgages
collateralizing three-to-four-unit residential mortgages with other
residential mortgage loans. The agencies also provided an exemption for
three-to-four-unit residential mortgages that otherwise would qualify
as QMs to ensure that credit did not contract to this part of the
market. The number of mortgages collateralized by three-to-four-unit
properties, and the percentage of such mortgages funded through
private-label securitizations, is small.\20\ The exemption also does
not appear to be spurring any significant speculative activity in the
securitization market and, at the same time, these properties are a
source of affordable housing. Therefore, the agencies are not proposing
to amend this exemption at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Based on data reported under the Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act (HMDA), there were about 35,000 such purchase originations in
2018 and 2019 combined, and of these, less than 2 percent appear to
have been funded through private-label securitizations.

Michael J. Hsu,
Acting Comptroller of the Currency.
    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.
Ann E. Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    By order of the Board of Directors.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on December 14, 2021.
James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
    Dated: December 14, 2021.

    By the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
Sandra L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
    By the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Lopa P. Kolluri,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2021-27561 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67;4810-33; 6210-01; 6714-01;2011-018070-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31422-31423]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12833]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032]

Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Standards; Daimler Trucks North
America (Daimler) Exemption Application

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; granting of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant Daimler Trucks North
America's (Daimler) application for an exemption for two Daimler
drivers to drive commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in the United States
without possessing the requisite commercial driver's license (CDL)
issued by one of the States. George Weiberg and Klaus-Dieter Holloh are
field test engineers who will be test-driving Daimler vehicles on U.S.
roads in order to meet future vehicle safety and environmental
regulatory requirements and to promote the development of technology
advancements in vehicle safety systems and emissions reductions. Each
of these drivers holds a valid German CDL but lacks the U.S. residency
necessary to obtain a CDL issued by one of the States. FMCSA believes
that the process for obtaining a German-issued CDL is comparable to or
is as effective as the U.S. CDL requirements and ensures that these
drivers will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or
greater than the level of safety that would be obtained in the absence
of the exemption.

DATES: This exemption is effective April 17, 2012, and expires on April
17, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, MC-PSD, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR
part 350 et seq.) for up to 2 years. The Agency must find that the
exemption will allow the applicant to implement more effective or
efficient operations and ``would likely achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption'' (49 CFR 381.305 (a)). Exemptions are renewable
for 2-year periods.

Daimler Application for Exemption

    Daimler applied for an exemption for drivers Georg Weiberg and
Klaus-Dieter Holloh from 49 CFR 383.23 of the CDL rules, requiring
drivers operating CMVs to have a CDL issued by one of the States. A
copy of the request for exemption is in the docket identified at the
beginning of this notice. The exemption allows these two drivers to
operate CMVs to support Daimler field tests to meet future vehicle
safety and environmental regulatory requirements and to promote the
development of technology and advancements in vehicle safety systems
and emissions reductions. These Daimler drivers will typically drive
for no more than 6 hours per day for 2 consecutive days, and 10 percent
of the test driving will be on two-lane state highways, while 90
percent will be on interstate highways. The driving for each driver
will consist of no more than 200 miles per day for a total of 400 miles
during a two-day period on a quarterly basis.
    49 CFR 383.21 requires CMV drivers in the United States to have a
CDL issued by a State. Weiberg and Holloh are citizens and residents of
Germany. Only residents of a State can apply for a CDL.\1\ Without the
exemption,

Weiberg and Holloh would not be able to test-drive Daimler prototype
CMVs on U.S. roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although 49 CFR 383.23 indicates that these drivers could
obtain a nondomiciled CDL, few States if any are currently issuing
nondomiciled CDLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Weiberg and Holloh each hold German CDLs and are experienced
operators of CMVs. In their application for exemption, Daimler also
submitted documentation showing the German safe driving records of both
Weiberg and Holloh.

Method to Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    According to Daimler, the requirements for a German-issued CDL
ensure that the same level of safety is met or exceeded as if these
drivers had CDLs issued by one of the States. Daimler's drivers are
very familiar with the operation of CMVs worldwide and these drivers
will be accompanied at all times by a U.S.-issued CDL holder who is
familiar with the routes to be traveled. FMCSA has determined the
process for obtaining a CDL in Germany is comparable to that for
obtaining a CDL issued by one the States and adequately assesses each
driver's ability to safely operate CMVs in the United States.

Comments

    No comments were received in response to the FMCSA notice of this
application and request for comments, published on March 7, 2012 (77 FR
13684).

FMCSA Decision

    Based upon the merits of this application, including the extensive
driving experience and safety records of Georg Weiberg and Klaus-Dieter
Holloh, and the fact that both individuals have each successfully
completed the requisite training and testing to obtain a German CDL,
FMCSA concluded that the exemption would likely achieve a level of
safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption, in accordance with 381.305(a).

Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    FMCSA grants Daimler an exemption from the CDL requirement in 49
CFR 383.23 to allow Weiberg and Holloh to drive CMVs in the United
States, subject to the following terms and conditions:
    (1) The drivers and carrier must comply with all other applicable
provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49
CFR parts 350-399), (2) the drivers must be in possession of the
exemption document and a valid German CDL, (3) the drivers must be
employed by, and operating the CMV within the scope of their duties
for, Daimler, (4) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing of any accident,
as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, involving one or both of these drivers, and
(5) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing if either driver is convicted
of a disqualifying offense under section 383.51 or section 391.15 of
the FMCSRs.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the exemption will
be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by the FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if: (1) An exempted driver fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption results in a
lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would be inconsistent with the goals and
objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.

    Issued on: May 21, 2012.
 Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-12833 Filed 5-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 226 (Monday, November 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67767-67768]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25877]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93638; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2021-027]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Interpretation and Policy .01
to Rule 11.13 in Connection With a Risk Setting That Users May Elect To
Apply to Their Orders in Hard To Borrow Securities

November 22, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 8, 2021, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. filed with the Securities
and Exchange 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

    Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposal to amend Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 11.13 in
connection with a risk setting that Users \3\ may elect to apply to
their orders in hard to borrow securities. The text of the proposed
rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A User is any Member or Sponsored Participant who is
authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to Rule 11.13.
See Rule 1.5(cc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/byx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to amend Interpretation and Policy
.01 to Rule 11.13 to allow the Exchange to offer its Users a hard to
borrow risk setting (``Hard to Borrow List'') that Users may elect to
apply to their short sale orders in U.S. equity securities. Pursuant to
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 11.13, the Exchange currently
offers certain optional risk settings applicable to a User's activities
on the Exchange. Specifically, Interpretation and Policy .01(d)
currently provides Users with controls to restrict the types of
securities transacted, including restricted securities and easy to
borrow securities, as well as restricting activity to test symbols
only. When utilized, these optional risk tools act as a risk filter by
evaluating a User's orders to determine whether the orders comply with
certain criteria established by the User.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60236 (July 2, 2009)
74 FR 34068 (July 14, 2009) (SR-BATS-2009-019) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to establish a
Sponsored Access Risk Management Tool). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 34-68330 (November 30, 2012) 77 FR 72894 (December
6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2012-045).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .01(d)
to Exchange Rule 11.13, to also include a Hard to Borrow List. Like the
existing risk settings, the proposed rule change offers Users an
optional tool to evaluate whether their orders comply with User
established criteria. Specifically, orders submitted in securities
included on a User's Hard to Borrow List will be rejected back to the
User.
    The Hard to Borrow List resides at a User's port level, a User-
specific logical session used to access the Exchange. Users may upload
a Hard to Borrow List to their preferred port(s) via a web-based
application programming interface. When uploaded to the port, Users may
apply the setting to some or all of the market-participant identifiers
(MPID) that they use to access the Exchange via the specified port. As
is the case with the Exchange's existing risk settings, the User, and
not the Exchange, will have the full responsibility for ensuring that
their orders comply with applicable securities rules, laws, and
regulations, and may not rely on the Hard to Borrow List for any such
purpose.\5\ Furthermore, use of the Hard to Borrow List does not
automatically constitute compliance with Exchange Rules. As is the case
with the Exchange's existing risk settings, the Exchange does not
believe that the use of the Hard to Borrow List can replace User-
managed risk management solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Commission Release No. 34-50103
(July 28, 2004) 69 FR 48007 (August 6, 2004) (Final Rule: Short
Sales) at 48014, regarding hard to borrow lists and the locate
requirements under 17 CFR 242.203 (Regulation SHO Rule 203--
Borrowing and delivery requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make the risk setting available to its
Users upon request and will not require Users to utilize the Hard to
Borrow List. The Exchange will not provide preferential treatment to
Users using the Hard to Borrow List. However, the Exchange believes the
Hard to Borrow List will offer Exchange Users another option in
efficient risk management of its access to the Exchange. For instance,
the Hard to Borrow List may assist some Users in managing borrowing
costs for their short sale transactions. Generally, day over day
borrowing costs in hard to borrow securities may be costly, and while a
locate may be secured by a User prior to routing their short sale
transactions to the Exchange, borrowing costs may make such
transactions less desirable. By utilizing the Hard to Borrow List,
Users have a tool that enables them to manage their costs by rejecting
orders in such securities.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to, and perfect the

mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with these principles because, like the current risk
settings, the Hard to Borrow List fosters competition by providing
another option in the efficient risk management of trading on the
Exchange. Users are free to use the Exchange's Hard to Borrow List, or
other risk management offerings.
    Moreover, as noted by the Commission, even when shares can be
borrowed short sellers may find it costly to borrow stock to enter or
maintain a short position.\8\ In this regard, the Hard to Borrow List
provides Users with a tool to help manage such costs by rejecting
orders in hard to borrow securities and thus providing a mechanism of
financial protection to Exchange Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Staff Report on Equity And Options Market Structure Conditions in
Early 2021, (October 14, 2021) at 30, footnote 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles
of Section 11A(a)(1) \9\ in that it seeks to assure economically
efficient execution of securities transactions, makes it practicable
for brokers to execute investors' orders in the best market, and
provides an opportunity for investors' orders to be executed without
the participation of a dealer. Additionally, the rule proposal is
consistent with Section 11(a)(1) \10\ in that makes the Hard to Borrow
List available to all Users, regardless of their size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the proposed rule
change is not designed to address any competitive issues and does not
pose an undue burden on Users, as the Hard to Borrow List is an
optional risk setting offered to all Users.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposal. No written comments were solicited or
received on the proposed rule change.

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 up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate 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 will:
    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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBYX-2021-027 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-CboeBYX-2021-027. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBYX-2021-027 and should be submitted
on or before December 20, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25877 Filed 11-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 31316-31318]
[DOCID:fr06jn07-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2851-014]

Cellu Tissue Corporation; Notice of Intent to File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Commencement of
Licensing Proceeding, Scoping Meetings, Solicitation of Comments on the
Pad and Scoping Document, and Identification Issues and Associated
Study Requests

May 30, 2007.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Licensing Proceeding.
    b. Project No.: 2851-014.
    c. Dated Filed: April 13, 2007.
    d. Submitted By: Cellu Tissue Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: Natural Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Oswegatchie River in town of Gouverneur, in St.
Lawrence County, New York. No Federal lands are involved.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR Part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Nicholas Barr, Cellu Tissue Corp.,
Natural Dam Mill, 4921 Route 58N, P.O. Box 98, Gouverneur, NY 13642,
(315) 287-7190.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-6093.
    j. We are asking Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies with
jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental
issues to cooperate with

us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would
like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for
filing comments described in paragraph o below. Cooperating agencies
should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See,
94 FERC ] 61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by Section 106, National Historical
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Cellu Tissue Corporation as
the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Cellu Tissue Corporation filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission
issued Scoping Document on May 29, 2007.
    n. A copy of the PAD and the scoping document are available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, of for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
paragraph h.
    Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified

via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are setting the effective date for the
commencement of licensing proceeding to be June 12, 2007, and
soliciting comments on the PAD and the scoping document, as well as
study requests. All comments on the PAD and the scoping document, and
study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In
addition, all comments on the PAD and the scoping document, study
requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all
communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of
the potential application (original and eight copies) must be filed
with the Commission at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the Commission must include on
the first page, Natural Dam Project) and number (P-2851-014), and bear
the heading ``Comments on Pre-Application Document,'' ``Study
Requests,'' ``Comments on Scoping Document 1,'' ``Request for
Cooperating Agency Status,'' or ``Communications to and from Commission
Staff.'' Any individual or entity interested in submitting study
requests, commenting on the PAD or the scoping document, and any agency
requesting cooperating status must do so by August 11, 2007.
    Comments on the PAD and the scoping document, study requests,
requests for cooperating agency status, and other permissible forms of
communications with the Commission may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-

filing'' link.
    p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will
satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or
EIS is issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2007.
    Time: 6 p.m.
    Location: Cellu Tissue Corporation, Natural Dam Mill, 4921 Route
58N, Gouverneur, NY 13642, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2007.
    Time: 10 a.m.
    Location: Cellu Tissue Corporation, Natural Dam Mill, 4921 Route
58N, Gouverneur, NY 13642, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The scoping document, which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals
and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the scoping
document will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on
the Web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the

directions for accessing information in paragraph n. Depending on the
extent of comments received, Scoping Document 2 may or may not be
issued.

Site Visit

    Cellu Tissue Corporation will conduct a site visit of the project
at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, June 26, 2007. All participants should meet at
the Cellu Tissue Corporation Natural Dam Mill, 4921 Route 58N,
Gouverneur, New York 13642. All participants are responsible for their
own transportation. Anyone with questions about the site visit should
contact Mr. Nicholas Barr of Cellu Tissue Corporation at<PHONE_NUMBER>
on or before June 26, 2007.

Scoping Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and the scoping
document are included in item n of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will become
part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-10806 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5170-5171]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1826]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1143; Airspace Docket No. 11-AGL-23]

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Jackson, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace within the Jackson, MI,
area by changing the name of the airport from Jackson County-Reynolds
Field to Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, and updating the
geographic coordinates. This action does not change the boundaries or
operating requirements of the airspace.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, April 5, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51,

subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by changing the airport formerly known as Jackson County-
Reynolds Field to Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, and adjusting
the geographic coordinates within Class D airspace to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database. This is an administrative change and does
not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the
airspace, therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)
are unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Jackson County Airport-Reynolds
Field, Jackson, MI.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL MI D Jackson, MI [Amended]

Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]15'38'' N., long. 84[deg]27'38'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Jackson County Airport-
Reynolds Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 12, 2012.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-1826 Filed 2-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P