[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74109-74111]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30810]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65815; File No. SR-BX-2011-079]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Exclude
All Rights and Warrants From the Pilot Rule for Trading Pauses Due to
Extraordinary Market Volatility

November 23, 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 November 18, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by BX. 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

    BX proposes to exclude all rights and warrants from the pilot
trading pause process under Rule 4120(a)(11) by amending IM-4120-3,
which defines what is considered a ``Circuit Breaker Security'' under
Rule 4120(a)(11).
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized.
* * * * *

IM-4120-3. Circuit Breaker Securities Pilot

    The provisions of paragraph (a)(11) of this Rule shall be in
effect during a pilot set to end on January 31, 2012. During the
pilot, the term ``Circuit Breaker Securities'' shall mean all NMS
stocks except rights and warrants.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, BX 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. BX 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
    BX proposes to exclude all rights and warrants from the trading
pause process described under Rule 4120(a)(11) by excluding them from
the definition of ``Circuit Breaker Securities'' under IM-4120-3. The
Commission approved Rule 4120(a)(11) and IM-4120-3 on a pilot basis on
June 10, 2010, together with the analogous rules of other exchanges
(collectively with BX, the ``Exchanges'') and FINRA, to provide for
trading pauses in individual securities due to extraordinary market
volatility in all securities included within the S&P 500 Index (``S&P
500'') (the ``Pause Pilot'').\3\ The Exchanges and FINRA subsequently
received approval to add to the Pause Pilot the securities included in
the Russell 1000 Index (``Russell 1000'') and a specified list of
Exchange Traded Products (``ETPs'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission approved the Pause Pilot for all equities
exchanges and FINRA. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62252
(June 10, 2010), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010) (File Nos. SR-BATS-
2010-014; SR-EDGA-2010-01; SR-EDGX-2010-01; SR-BX-2010-037; SR-ISE-
2010-48; SR-NYSE-2010-39; SR-NYSEAmex-2010-46; SR-NYSEArca-2010-41;
SR-NASDAQ-2010-061; SR-CHX-2010-10; SR-NSX-2010-05; and SR-CBOE-
2010-047), and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62251 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34183 (June 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-025).
    \4\ The Commission approved the addition to the Pause Pilot of
the securities included in the Russell 1000 and ETPs, where
applicable, for all equities exchanges and FINRA. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62884 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56618
(September 16, 2010) (File Nos. SR-BATS-2010-018; SR-BX-2010-044;
SR-CBOE-2010-065; SR-CHX-2010-14; SR-EDGA-2010-05; SR-EDGX-2010-05;
SR-ISE-2010-66; SR-NASDAQ-2010-079; SR-NYSE-2010-49; SR-NYSEAmex-
2010-63; SR-NYSEArca-2010-61; and SR-NSX-2010-08, and Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62883 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56608
(September 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-033). BX submitted a proposed
rule change shortly after the addition of the Russell 1000
securities and ETPs to extend the operation of the Pause Pilot,
which was set to expire on December 10, 2010, until April 11, 2011.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63527 (December 10, 2010),
75 FR 78781 (December 16, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-088). On March 31, 2011,
BX submitted a proposed rule change to further extend the Pause
Pilot until the earlier of August 11, 2011 or the date on which a
limit up/limit down mechanism to address extraordinary market
volatility, if adopted, applies. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 64176 (April 4, 2011), 76 FR 19821 (April 8, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-
018). On August 8, 2011, BX submitted a proposed rule change to
further extend the Pause Pilot until January 31, 2012. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65093 (August 10, 2011), 76 FR
50781 (August 16, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-055).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 2011, the Commission approved proposed rule changes of
the Exchanges and FINRA to amend their respective rules to expand the
Pause Pilot to include all remaining NMS stocks (``Phase III
Securities''), which includes rights and warrants.\5\ Unlike the
original Pause Pilot securities, the amended Pause Pilot applies wider
percentage price moves to the Phase III Securities before a trading
pause is triggered.\6\ The changes to the Pause Pilot became effective
on August 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64735 (June 23,
2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-025, et al.).
    \6\ Under the amended Pause Pilot, a pause is triggered by a 30%
or more price move in a Phase III Security priced at $1 or higher,
and by a 50% or more price move to such a security priced less than
$1. The price of a security is based on the closing price on the
previous trading day, or, if no closing price exists, the last sale
reported to the Consolidated Tape on the previous trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges and FINRA have analyzed the nature of trading pauses
triggered since adoption of the Pause Pilot and found that over 25% of
such pauses have occurred in rights and warrants. Further, the
Exchanges and FINRA have experienced a significant increase in trading
pauses involving rights and warrants since the implementation of the
Phase III Securities, with such pauses representing approximately 52%
[sic] all trading pauses occurring through the end of August 2011.
Rights and warrants trade on equity exchanges, but are closely related
to call options. Rights and warrants entitle owners to purchase shares
of stock at predetermined prices subject to various timing and other
conditions. Like options, the price of rights and warrants are affected
by the price of the underlying stock as well as other factors,
particularly the volatility of the stock. As a consequence, the prices
of rights and warrants may move more dramatically than the prices of
the underlying stocks even when the rights and warrants (and the
underlying stock) are trading in an orderly manner. This difference in
trading behavior may result in rights and warrants triggering the
circuit breaker under the Pause Pilot and being subject to a trading
pause, even while the underlying stock continues to trade. This can be
particularly true of rights and warrants that have low prices. As such,
the Exchanges and FINRA have determined to exclude rights and warrants
from the Pause Pilot, and accordingly, BX is proposing to amend IM-
4120-3 to exclude rights and warrants from the Pause Pilot under Rule
4120(a)(11).
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of

Section 6(b)(5),\8\ 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, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The proposed rule change also is
designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \9\ of the Act
in that it seeks to ensure fair competition among brokers and dealers
and among exchange markets. BX believes that the proposed rule meets
these requirements because it excludes certain securities from the
rule's coverage that are prone to triggering pauses because of their
unique characteristics. These securities are unique in that they may
move more dramatically than the prices of the underlying stocks to
which they are related even when both securities are trading in an
orderly manner. As such, the securities that are subject to this
proposal may trigger a Pause Pilot circuit breaker and be subject to a
trading pause, even while the underlying security continues to trade.
Although there is little benefit in pausing trading in these
securities, such pauses sequester regulatory resources that are better
applied to the review of trading pauses in other securities that have a
greater impact on the national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Including rights and warrants in the pilot program which may trigger a
circuit breaker and be subject to a trading pause, even while the
underlying security continues to trade, provides little benefit and has
the potential to create confusion among investors. Excluding rights and
warrants from the pilot program should minimize investor confusion that
could result from temporary trading pauses in these securities. For
this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as
operative upon the date of this Notice.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 No. SR-BX-2011-079 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 No. SR-BX-2011-079. 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 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 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; 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 No. SR-BX-2011-079 and
should be submitted on or before December 21, 2011.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30810 Filed 11-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 78481-78482]
[DOCID:fr29de06-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54987; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding a
Permit Program for CBSX

December 20, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 18, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared
by the CBOE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its rules relating to the
establishment of a permit program for the Exchange's proposed stock-
trading facility CBSX. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at CBOE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.cboe.com
.

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 CBOE 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 CBOE 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
    CBSX will be a facility of the Exchange and will serve as the
Exchange's vehicle for trading non-option securities. The Exchange (via
a separate rule filing) is proposing to modify Chapters 50-55 of the
CBOE Rules in connection with the establishment of the CBSX. CBSX is a
separate legal entity (a Delaware Limited Liability Company) that is
owned by the Exchange and several strategic partners. The Exchange is
also submitting a rule filing proposing to establish CBSX as a facility
of the Exchange. The purpose of this filing is to modify the Exchange's
Constitution and Rules to establish a CBSX Permit Program that will
allow non-CBOE seat holders access to CBSX. The Exchange believes that
expanding access to CBSX beyond CBOE's options user base will enhance
liquidity on CBSX and make it a more attractive stock trading venue.
The salient features of the Permit Program are summarized below.
     The permits may only be used for trading stock on CBSX. A
Permit does not entitle the holder to trade options on CBOE or to
physically enter an option trading post on the trading floor.
     Up to 100 permits may be issued.
     The Permit Program could be terminated by the Exchange via
a rule filing approved by the Commission. This provision is
incorporated in the Constitution so that the Permit Program could be
terminated with a rule change filing but without a corresponding
membership vote (i.e., in approving this Constitutional change, the
membership is approving the notion that a future termination of the
Permit Program could occur without another membership vote).
     Permit holders would be deemed statutory members of CBOE.
Accordingly, they would have the same petition and voting rights as
regular members except for matters relating to Exchange ownership
(specifically, matters relating to demutualization, mergers,
consolidations, dissolution, liquidation, transfer, or conversion of
assets of the Exchange), and except matters relating the Chicago Board
of Trade exercise right.
     Permit holders would have no interest in the assets or
property of CBOE and would have no right to share in any distribution
by the Exchange.
     Permit holders (or an executive officer of a Permit
holder) would be eligible to run for an at-large director position and
a Nominating Committee position.
     Permit holders would have to be registered broker-dealers.
     Permits would not be transferable.
     All Permits would expire every October and would be
eligible for renewal.
    In connection with the Permit application process, if there are
fewer available CBSX Permits than qualified applicants, the Exchange
will determine which of the applicants to approve by lot. Applicants
that are affiliated shall be deemed one applicant in cases where there
are fewer available CBSX Permits than qualified applicants.
    A CBSX Permit holder and its associated persons shall comply with
and be subject to CBOE Rules to the same extent that Exchange members
and their associated persons are obligated to comply with and are
subject to Exchange Rules. Further, a CBSX Permit holder and its
associated persons shall be subject to the disciplinary, appeals, and
arbitration jurisdiction and rules of the Exchange and entitled to the
procedural rights under those rules to the same extent that Exchange
members and their associated persons are subject to such jurisdiction
and rules and entitled to such procedural rights.
    The rule filing also eliminates outdated references in the
Constitution to the New York Stock Exchange Options Permit Program
which no longer exists.
    Lastly, the Exchange notes that on December 14, 2006, the Exchange
held a special meeting of the membership for purposes of voting on the
Permit Program. The membership voted in favor of adopting the Permit
Program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and with
Section

6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ 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 regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system because it will
expand the user base for CBSX and enhance liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange did not solicit or receive any written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 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 self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. by order approve 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-CBOE-2006-107 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-107. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the 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-CBOE-2006-107 and should be submitted on or before
January 19, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-22392 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 8052]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02779]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 102, SEC File No. 270-409, OMB Control No. 3235-0467

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 102 of Regulation M (17
CFR 242.102), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 102--Activities by Issuers and Selling Security Holders During
a Distribution --prohibits distribution participants, issuers, and
selling security holders from purchasing activities at specified times
during a distribution of securities. Persons otherwise covered by this
rule may seek to use several applicable exceptions such as exclusion
for actively traded reference securities and the maintenance of
policies regarding information barriers between their affiliates.
    There are approximately 955 respondents per year that require an
aggregate total of 1,855 hours to comply with this rule. Each
respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes on
average approximately 1.942 hours to complete. Thus, the total
compliance burden per year is 1,855 burden hours. The total internal
compliance cost for all respondents is approximately $129,850.00,
resulting in an internal cost of compliance per respondent of
approximately $135.97 (i.e., $129,850.00/955 respondents).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 7, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-02779 Filed 2-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 25833-25834]
[DOCID:fr02my06-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-65-000]

Roger & Emma Wahl, Complainants v. Allamakee-Clayton Electric
Cooperative, Respondent; Notice of Complaint Filing

April 25, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 24, 2006 Roger and Emma Wahl
(Complainants) filed a complaint against Allamakee-Clayton Electric
Cooperative (ACEC) alleging that ACEC violated The Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). The Complainants request fast
track processing of their complaint.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must

be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer,
motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on May 2, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6561 Filed 5-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29722-29723]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12401]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Advisory Committee; Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee;
Renewal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Renewal of Federal advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
renewal of the Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee by the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has
determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Medical
Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the
charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until the
May 18, 2015, expiration date.

DATES: Authority for the Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee will
expire on May 18, 2017, unless the Commissioner formally determines
that renewal is in the public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren D. Tesh, Division of Advisory
Committee and Consultant Management, Office of Executive Programs, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002;<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by
the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11
and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the
renewal of the Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (the
Committee). The Committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee
established to provide advice to the Commissioner. The Committee
advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as
they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use
and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory
responsibility.
    The Committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive
pharmaceuticals and contrast media used in diagnostic radiology and
makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.

    The Committee shall consist of a core of 12 voting members
including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the
Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the
fields of nuclear medicine, radiology, epidemiology or statistics, and
related specialties. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping
terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this
committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting
members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the
Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and
is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented
organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting
members, the Committee may include one non-voting member who is
identified with industry interests.
    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other
information can be found at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/MedicalImagingDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/default.htm or by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (Please see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In light of the fact that no change
has been made to the committee name or description of duties, no
amendment will be made to 21 CFR 14.100.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory
committees please visit us at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: May 18, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-12401 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


___________________________________________

REPORTS ON SIGNIFICANT AIRLINE SERVICE	Docket-OST-01-10711

REDUCTIONS

March 6, 2002

NOTICE OF LAST SCHEDULED NONSTOP SERVICE IN A DOMESTIC MARKET

Chautauqua Airlines d/b/a American Connection submits pursuant to Order
2001-9-20 the following notice of termination of the last nonstop
service in a domestic market.

Chautauqua/American Connection will discontinue its one daily nonstop
round trip between Sioux City, IA and St. Louis, MO.  The last date of
service from St. Louis to Sioux City will be March 31.  The last date of
service from Sioux City to St. Louis will be April 1, 2002.  It is our
understanding that TransStates Airlines, operating as American
Connection, will also eliminate its round trip nonstop Sioux City –
St. Louis service on March 31.  Hence, the  last nonstop service in a
domestic market will be terminated.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey B. Jones

VP-Planning

Chautauqua Airlines, Inc.

2500 S. High School Road, Suite 160

Indianapolis, IN 46241


[Federal Register: April 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 21627]
[DOCID:fr22ap08-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER08-333-000; ER08-333-001]

Las Vegas Cogeneration Limited Partnership; Notice of Issuance of
Order

April 15, 2008.
    Las Vegas Cogeneration Limited Partnership (Las Vegas) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate
schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale
of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Las
Vegas also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, Las Vegas requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by Las Vegas.
    On March 4, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Las Vegas, should file a protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). The Commission
encourages the electronic submission of protests using the FERC Online
link at http://www.ferc.gov.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is May
14, 2008.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Las Vegas is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Las Vegas, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Las Vegas' issuance of securities or assumptions
of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-8632 Filed 4-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50373-50376]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20465]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 100 and 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0551]
RIN 1625-AA00; 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation and Safety Zone; America's Cup World
Series Regattas, San Francisco Bay; San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has established a special local regulation and
a safety zone for sailing events scheduled to occur on the waters of
San Francisco Bay adjacent to the City of San Francisco waterfront in
the vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge and Alcatraz Island. This rule
will revise the start time for enforcement on August 26, 2012, to 11:30
a.m. instead of noon. This

change will protect mariners transiting the area from the dangers
associated with the sailing events. Unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the
safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from August 21, 2012, until August 26,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2011-0551. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant DeCarol Davis, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

APA Administrative Procedure Act
ACRM America's Cup Race Management
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On July 17, 2012, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule
regulating the on-water activities associated with the ``2012 America's
Cup World Series'' regatta scheduled to occur August 21-26, 2012 (77 FR
41902). That rule created a special local regulation and safety zone to
be enforced from noon until 5 p.m. on those days.
    On August 11, 2012, the Coast Guard received notification from
America's Cup Race Management (ACRM) that the race scheduled to occur
on August 26, 2012, would begin 30 minutes earlier in order to maintain
schedules for television coverage and broadcasting. Regulating on-water
activities associated with the regatta during those 30 minutes is
necessary to protect the public from the dangers posed by the high
speeds of the sailing vessels operating during this media coverage. The
time remaining before the scheduled August 26th race does not allow for
public comment on this change. Publishing a rule is in the public's
interest, however, to provide for the safety of mariners transiting the
area and to notify the public of planned on-water activities. The
timing of enforcement also was addressed in public comments the Coast
Guard received and considered in development of the rule published on
July 17, and based on those comments the Coast Guard believes that
starting enforcement 30 minutes earlier on one day will not interfere
with other waterway uses.
    Accordingly, the Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule
without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority
under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without
prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause
finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' For the reasons described above, the
Coast Guard finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that good cause exists for
not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to
this rule because publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the public
interest.
    Similarly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register. For the reasons stated
above, delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public
interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Under 33 CFR 100.35, the Coast Guard District Commander has
authority to promulgate certain special local regulations deemed
necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters
immediately before, during, and immediately after an approved regatta
or marine parade. The Commander of Coast Guard District 11 has
delegated to the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco the
responsibility of issuing such regulations. The COTP also has the
authority to establish safety zones under 33 CFR 1.05-1(f) and 165.5.
    From August 21-26, 2012, the City of San Francisco plans to host
America's Cup World Series regattas as part of a circuit of sailing
events being conducted at other U.S. and international venues. On July
17, 2012, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule establishing
a special local regulation and temporary safety zone to govern these
events from noon to 5 p.m. (77 FR 41902); however, the events on August
26, 2012, will start earlier to maintain the event's television
broadcast schedule. To protect the public during this media coverage,
the Coast Guard is revising the enforcement provisions of the July 17
rule to provide for enforcement from 11:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on August
26, 2012. This change is necessary to ensure the safety of mariners
transiting the area from the dangers associated with the sailing
events.

C. Discussion of the Temporary Final Rule

    The location and restrictions of the special local regulation
established at 33 CFR 100.T11-0551A and the safety zone established at
33 CFR 165.T11-0551 remain as they were published on July 17, 2012, and
are not changed by this rule. The enforcement periods of both the
special local regulation and the safety zone are revised to reflect
enforcement from 11:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on August 26, 2012, instead of
from noon until 5 p.m. as originally established. Enforcement on the
other program days in 2012 and 2013 is not affected by this rule.
    The effect of the special local regulation and temporary safety
zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the America's
Cup sailing events. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain
in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep mariners
and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the high-speed sailing
vessels participating in America's Cup. Movement within marinas, pier
spaces, and facilities along the City of San Francisco waterfront is
not regulated by this rule.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive

Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it
under those Orders.
    Although this rule restricts navigation on San Francisco Bay, these
restrictions will only be in place for an additional 30 minutes on one
day, and are limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In
addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed
by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum
impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront
facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in
recreational activities.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small
entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial
vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and
sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the
special local regulation and safety zone at times when they are being
enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i)
This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a
limited period of time; (ii) vessel traffic may pass safely around the
area; (iii) vessel traffic may pass through the area with COTP
approval; (iv) recreational vessel operators may use spaces outside of
the affected areas; and (v) the maritime public will be advised in
advance via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. These measures have been
implemented during similar marine events such as Fleet Week and have
been successful.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A copy of the environmental assessment
is available in the docket.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Waterways.

33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR Parts 100 and 165 as follows:

PART 100--REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Revise paragraph (b) of Sec.  100.T11-0551A to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T11-0551A  Special Local Regulation; 2012 America's Cup World
Series.

* * * * *
    (b) Enforcement Period. The regulations in this section will be
enforced between the hours of noon and 5 p.m. on designated program
days between August 21, 2012, and August 25, 2012, and between 11:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. on August 26, 2012. The enforcement period may be
curtailed earlier by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or Patrol
Commander. Notice of the specific program dates and times will be
issued via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and published by the Coast
Guard in the Local Notice to Mariners and in the Federal Register.
* * * * *

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
3. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
4. Effective from August 21, 2012, until August 26, 2012, suspend
paragraph (b) of Sec.  165.T11-0551 and add paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  165.T11-0551  Safety Zone; America's Cup Sailing Events.

* * * * *
    (d) Location and enforcement period. A safety zone extends 100
yards around America's Cup Racing Vessels from noon until 5 p.m. on
program days between August 21, 2012, and August 25, 2012; from 11:30
a.m. until 5 p.m. on August 26, 2012; and from 11 a.m. until 4 p.m. on
program days between July 4, 2013, and September 23, 2013. The
enforcement period may be curtailed earlier by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) or Patrol Commander. Notice of the specific program dates and
times will be issued via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and published by
the Coast Guard in the Federal Register.
* * * * *

    Dated: August 14, 2012.
Cynthia L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2012-20465 Filed 8-17-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 230 (Monday, November 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 76652]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26263]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0385]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Competition
Plans, Passenger Facility Charges

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on April 21, 2020.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by December 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda Shotto by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with
an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing
collections of information. This helps the FAA assess the impact of its
information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting
burden.
    The FAA invites comment on any aspect of this information
collection, including (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden
could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected
information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0661.
    Title: Competition Plans, Passenger Facility Charges.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an Information Collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on April 21, 2020 (85 FR 22244). The DOT/FAA will use any
information submitted in response to this requirement to carry out the
intent of Title 49, Sections 40117(k) and 47106(f). These rules assure
that a covered airport has, and implements, a plan that provides
opportunities for competitive access by new entrant air carriers or air
carriers seeking to expand. The affected public includes public
agencies controlling medium or large hub airports.
    Respondents: 5 affected airports annually.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 150 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: Approximately 750 hours annually.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 23, 2020.
David F. Cushing,
Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division, APP-500.
[FR Doc. 2020-26263 Filed 11-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24390-24394]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08776]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0007]

Request for Comments on Barriers and Solutions for Submitting
Toxicology Data to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System Pursuant to
Recommendations for Toxicological Investigation of Drug-Impaired
Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities

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

ACTION: Request for comments on barriers to and solutions for providing
toxicological data on drug-impaired driving investigations of motor
vehicle fatalities to the Fatality Analysis

Reporting System (FARS) that meet the recommendations described in
Recommendations for Toxicological Investigations of Drug-Impaired
Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities--2021 Update.

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

SUMMARY: Section 25025 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
requires NHTSA to submit a report to Congress that, in accordance with
recommendations made in Recommendations for Toxicological
Investigations of Drug-Impaired Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities--
2021 Update, (1) ``identifies any barriers the States encounter in
submitting alcohol and drug toxicology results to the Fatality Analysis
Reporting System;'' and (2) ``provides recommendations on how to
address the barriers identified'' pursuant to providing the data
described in the above recommendations for toxicological
investigations. This notice requests public comments on any barriers
that States may encounter that would affect their ability to provide
the toxicological data described in the 2021 Update of the
Recommendations document to FARS, as well as recommendations to address
those barriers identified.

DATES: The request for comments is effective on April 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2022-0007 using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    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.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information, contact Dr.
Randolph Atkins, Jr., Chief, Behavioral Research Division, NPD-310,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    There is a growing concern with drug impaired driving in the United
States and around the globe. While alcohol is the drug most often
linked to impaired driving and crashes, there are many other drugs that
can impair driving ability and contribute to crashes.\i\ Other
potentially impairing drugs include some over-the-counter (OTC) drugs,
some prescription drugs, and most illegal drugs. The use of drugs other
than alcohol and in combination with alcohol is widespread. The
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) estimated that 53.2
million people in the United States used illegal drugs in 2018, an
increase of 2 million people since 2017. The 2018 survey also found
that 16.9 million people reported misusing psychotherapeutics in 2018,
and 12.6 million people reported driving under the influence of illegal
drugs.\ii\ The 2020 NSDUH found use of illicit drugs in the past year
had increased to 59.3 million people or 21.4% of the U.S. population
age 12 or older,\iii\ and an increase of 6.1 million people since 2018.
    NHTSA's 2013-2014 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use
by Drivers reported that 20.1% of all drivers surveyed on weekend
nights tested positive for the presence of some drug, legal and/or
illegal, other than alcohol, a statistically significant increase from
the 16.3% of drug-positive drivers found in the 2007 survey.\iv\
NHTSA's study of drug prevalence in road users with serious or fatal
injuries admitted to five Level-1 trauma centers or their corresponding
Medical Examiner's offices, found that in the months just prior to the
current pandemic 50.8% of the drivers in the study had at least one
drug in their system (including alcohol) with 17.6% having multiple
drugs in their systems. This increased to 64.7% and 25.3%,
respectively, during the pandemic in the second quarter of 2020. During
this time cannabis presence increased from 20.8% to 32.7% and opioid
presence increased from 7.5% to 13.9% in this sample of drivers.\v\
Clearly, many drivers on the roads today pose a potential danger to
themselves and others because of potentially impairing drugs in their
systems.
    Prescription and OTC drug use is quite common in America. The
National Center for Health Statistics estimated that, from 2015-2018,
48.6% of Americans used at least one prescription medication in the
past 30 days, with 24% using three or more prescription medications in
the last 30 days and 12.8% using five or more prescription medications
in the last 30 days. The most frequently prescribed drugs were
analgesics,\vi\ which is reflected in the current opioid epidemic.
Drivers increase the risk of drug-impaired driving because they may not
be able to distinguish between prescription drugs that are impairing
and those that are not.\vii\ Furthermore, the simultaneous use of
multiple therapeutic drugs or combining therapeutics with alcohol
increases the risk of motor vehicle crashes because of the potential
for interaction effects.\viii\
    Another trend fueling concerns about drug-impaired driving is the
shift in use, social acceptance, and policies regarding the use of
marijuana. Marijuana is defined here as ``all substances containing
tetrahydrocannabinol.'' \ix\ The terms marijuana and cannabis are used
interchangeably in this document. From 2001-2002 to 2012-2013, the use
of marijuana doubled from 4.1% to 9.5% of the U.S. adult population,
with 30% of these users meeting the criteria for marijuana use
disorder.\x\ In 2020, 17.9% of Americans 12 years or older reported
using cannabis in the past year (approximately 49.6 million people),
and an estimated 5.1% of people 12 and older (approximately 14.2
million people) had a cannabis use disorder.\xi\ Though marijuana is
still illegal under federal law, eighteen States and the District of
Columbia have now legalized both recreational and medical use of
marijuana and seventeen States have legalized the use of medical
marijuana. Another thirteen states have legalized marijuana for
specific medical conditions.\xii\ In 2018, Canada legalized the
recreational use of marijuana at the national level, and Mexico passed
a bill legalizing recreational cannabis in 2021. This trend towards
legalization has been accompanied by an increase in the presence of
marijuana found in drivers. NHTSA's National Roadside Survey found
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) presence in 12.7% of surveyed drivers in
2013-2014, up from 8.7% in the 2007 survey. In a 2018 study by
Washington State, 39.1% of drivers admitted to driving within 3 hours
of using marijuana at least once in the previous year, and the
biological results from the survey indicated that the presence of
marijuana in surveyed drivers had doubled, from approximately 10%, to
20% of all drivers after the state's implementation of retail marijuana
sales.\xiii\ A NHTSA roadside survey in Washington State found similar
results, with 7.8% of drivers testing positive for presence of THC
prior to the

implementation of legal marijuana in the state. NHTSA found significant
increases in THC presence in drivers six months (18.4%) and one year
(18.9%) after legalization.\xiv\ While linking the level of marijuana
present in biological samples with level of impairment remains
challenging, well-established evidence shows that marijuana use
detrimentally affects driving-related skills. Marijuana use slows
driver reaction time, creates problems with road tracking and
maintaining lane position, and decreases cognitive performance and
driver attention maintenance. Marijuana use in conjunction with other
drugs, such as alcohol, can also have a compounding effect on
impairment.\xv\ The current shifts in policy and marijuana use increase
the public health concerns regarding drug-impaired driving.
    The lack of adequate data to determine the scope and magnitude of
the drug impaired driving problem presents a major challenge in
addressing the issue of drug-impaired driving.xi xvi
Estimates show that comprehensive societal costs for alcohol-impaired
driving were approximately $194 billion in 2010; \xvii\ however, the
data required for conducting similar analyses for the comprehensive
societal costs of drug-impaired driving are lacking. The data currently
available on drug-impaired driving and motor vehicle crashes have many
shortcomings.\xviii\ These include inconsistent drug testing policies
and procedures across jurisdictions, such as considerable variability
in who is tested, what drugs are tested for, detection capabilities of
the laboratory, and what specimen matrices (blood, oral fluid, urine,
etc.) are used.
    In 2009,\xii\ and again in 2017,\xi\ NHTSA recommended that States
provide separate statutes for alcohol- and drug-impaired offenses, to
provide incentive for ``law enforcement officers to pursue a possible
drug-impaired driving charge even when a BAC equal to or above the
limit of .08 g/dL has already been established,'' but few states
currently have such statutes. Many jurisdictions only test for drugs
when alcohol levels are below per se limits that indicate a driver, by
law, is intoxicated by alcohol, and forego drug testing when alcohol
per se limits are met. However, high percentages of specimens in
impaired driving cases that were tested only for alcohol are often
positive for other drugs, too.\xix\ Some jurisdictions do not perform
any drug testing for motor vehicle crashes. Reporting of the toxicology
findings is also inconsistent and often lacks sufficient specificity
regarding whether it is reporting a screening test or a confirmation
test, and other critical information, such as the drug panels and
thresholds of detection used, is often left out. This widespread
inconsistency in drug testing and lack of detail in reporting of
toxicology on reports of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities creates
significant problems for policy makers and traffic safety professionals
trying to address the problem of drug-impaired driving.
    In many States, the large number of laboratories conducting post-
mortem drug testing (typically ordered at the county level by the
coroner or medical examiner) often do not look for the same core list
of drugs and do not use comparable testing techniques with similar
thresholds of detection because there is a lack of standardization
regarding the drug panels and detection thresholds used for motor
vehicle crashes. This prevents data from different laboratories from
being combined to get a clear picture of drug use within the State.
Similarly, in many States, individual law enforcement agencies contract
with different laboratories which do not screen for the same set of
core drugs, nor use comparable testing techniques with similar
thresholds of detection. This limits the ability to characterize and
monitor/conduct surveillance and better understand the issue of
statewide driver drug use. ``Currently, the limitations (in the drugged
driving data) severely constrain interpretation of the data.
Comparisons across labs, States, or years are problematic.'' This is
reflected at the national level in the FARS data.\xx\
    A recent expert panel on the impact of marijuana on the driving
while intoxicated (DWI) system, which included various experts from
divisions in the departments of motor vehicles, law enforcement, and
the courts and corrections departments as well as government data
systems, reported a serious need for more and better data on drug use
by drivers as well as standardized laboratory practices for drug
toxicology, including which drugs are tested for, what detection
thresholds of the drugs are used, confirmation testing results, and
comprehensive reporting on the tests conducted and the matrices
used.\xxi\ Recent reports from the Governors Highway Safety Association
(GHSA) have stressed the urgent need for better, more comprehensive
toxicology testing and reporting of toxicology test results for motor
vehicle crashes.xxii xxiii This need was also emphasized in
NHTSA's reports to Congress on marijuana-impaired driving (2017) \xi\
and drug-impaired driving (2009),\xii\ and two National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) reports on impaired driving.xxiv xxv

Recommendations and Request for Comments

    The Center for Forensic Science Research & Education (CFSRE) and
the National Safety Council Alcohol, Drugs and Impairment Division
(NSC-ADID) report, Updates for Recommendations for Drug Testing in DUID
& Traffic Fatality Investigations (2016), summarized a survey it
conducted of toxicology laboratories from across the country. The
survey identified ``current practices, capabilities, research needs and
gathered information regarding the scope and sensitivity of testing.''
\xxvi\ Subsequently, the Drugs, Technology, Pharmacology and Toxicology
Section of the National Safety Council's Alcohol, Drugs and Impairment
Division reviewed the survey results and updated their 2013 published
recommendations for the toxicology community,\xxvii\ which were
published as ``Recommendations for Toxicological Investigation of Drug-
Impaired Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities--2017 Update'' in the
Journal of Analytical Toxicology.\xxviii\ These recommendations are
referenced in Section 25025 of Public Law 117-58. The CFRSE and NSC-
ADID conducted a follow-up survey of laboratories in 2020, after which
the recommendations were updated and published as ``Recommendations for
Toxicological Investigation of Drug-Impaired Driving and Motor Vehicle
Fatalities--2021 Update'' in the Journal of Analytical
Toxicology.\xxix\ These recommendations address the identified
toxicology needs for drug-impaired driving cases. Coupled with
comprehensive reporting of the toxicology findings, the widespread use
of these toxicology recommendations could greatly enhance understanding
of the scope and magnitude of drug-impaired driving and help traffic
safety professionals better address this vital public health
issue.\xxx\ The toxicology recommendations in the 2021 Update are
available, free of charge, online at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34086916/.
    Given the growing national concern over drug-impaired driving and
the clear need for standardized drug-impaired driving toxicological
testing and comprehensive reporting on the toxicological results, NHTSA
is preparing a Report to Congress on Drug-Impaired Driving Data
Collection that identifies the barriers to States in providing the
toxicological data to FARS as described in the NSC-ADID document,
recommends solutions to overcome those barriers, and describes

the steps the Department of Transportation and NHTSA will take to
assist States in improving toxicology testing in cases of motor vehicle
crashes and reporting of alcohol and drug toxicology results in cases
of motor vehicle crashes provided to FARS. Our first step in producing
this report is the collection of information from the public on
barriers and possible solutions. NHTSA therefore seeks public comment
on any barriers that States may have to adopting these recommendations,
and any comments on what is needed to overcome these barriers.
    As previously noted, the Recommendations for Toxicological
Investigation of Drug-Impaired Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities--
2021 Update were developed by an expert panel of toxicologists based on
the results of a national survey of toxicology laboratories. These
voluntary recommendations are for forensic toxicological drug testing
and reporting for all drivers, motorcycle and moped operators,
bicyclists and pedestrians involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes, and
all drivers who are arrested or convicted for impaired operation of
motor vehicles, regardless of their tested Blood Alcohol Concentration
(BAC) or Breath Alcohol Concentration (BrAC). The recommendations
provide standardized lists of drugs, matrices (blood, oral fluid,
urine, etc.), and detection threshold levels for testing. The
guidelines include two tiers of drugs for testing: Tier 1 drugs (Table
II in the document) are drugs that are found throughout the country and
that should be tested for in all jurisdictions; Tier 2 drugs (Table III
in the document) are less common or predominantly found in specific
areas of the country, so they may only need to be routinely tested for
in those localities or on a case-by-case basis. NHTSA believes that the
voluntary adoption of these toxicology guidelines would greatly improve
data collection, and support future initiatives by a wide variety of
traffic safety stakeholders using this toxicological data to help
reduce drug-impaired driving. It is critical that comprehensive and
consistent data on this vital public health issue are available for use
in all parts of the impaired-driving system, from law enforcement to
adjudication and treatment to public policy.
    Drug impaired driving is a growing concern; however, the
information currently available on the scope and magnitude of drug
impaired driving is unclear. Today, there is great variation across the
country regarding which drivers are tested for drug use, what specimens
are collected for testing, what drugs are tested for, and what
threshold detection levels are used for drug tests. Comprehensive and
consistent toxicological data is needed to better inform the public and
public policy on this growing public health problem. This testing and
data are also essential to increasing the effectiveness of law
enforcement and adjudication efforts in drug-impaired driving cases and
to making America's roads safer for the driving public.
    In support of our efforts to improve the toxicological data
provided to FARS and the States, reduce the problem of drug-impaired
driving, and ``assist States in their efforts to increase public
awareness of the dangers of drug-impaired driving,'' \xxxi\ NHTSA
hereby requests public comment on the following:
    (1) Identification of any barriers or challenges that States
currently encounter in submitting alcohol and drug toxicology results
to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).
    (2) Suggestions for overcoming those current barriers and
challenges identified to improve the delivery of data to the FARS.
    (3) Identification of any barriers or challenges that States may
encounter in collecting the toxicology data as described in
Recommendations for Toxicological Investigation of Drug-Impaired
Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities--2021 Update (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34086916/) and submitting those alcohol and
drug toxicology results to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS).
    (4) Suggestions for overcoming those barriers and challenges
identified for collecting the toxicological data as described in the
Recommendations for Toxicological Investigation of Drug-Impaired
Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities--2021 Update to improve the
delivery of the data to the FARS.

Notes

    \i\ Couper, F. and Logan, B. 2004. Drugs and Human Performance.
DOT HS 809 725. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Washington, DC. https://www.wsp.wa.gov/breathtest/docs/webdms/DRE_Forms/Publications/drug/Human_Performance_Drug_Fact_Sheets-NHTSA.pdf.
    \ii\ Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. 2019.
Results from the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
SAMHSA, Rockville, MD. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2018-nsduh-detailed-tables.
    \iii\ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
(2021). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United
States: Results from the 2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
(HHS Publication No. PEP21-07-01-003, NSDUH Series H-56). Rockville,
MD: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/.
    \iv\ Kelley-Baker, T., Berning, A., Ramirez, A., Lacey, J.,
Carr, K., Waeher, G., Moore, C. Pell, K., Yao, J., and Compton, R.
2017. 2013-2014 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by
Drivers: Drug Results. DOT HS 812 411. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. Washington, DC. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/13013-nrs_drug_092917_v6_tag.pdf.
    \v\ Thomas, F.D., Berning, A., Darrah, J., Graham, L., Blomberg,
R., Griggs, C., Crandall, M., Schulman, C., Kozar, R., Neavyn, M.,
Cunningham, K., Ehsani, J., Fell, J., Whitehill, J., Babu, K., Lai,
J., and Rayner, M. (2020, October). Drug and alcohol prevalence in
seriously and fatally injured road users before and during the
COVID-19 public health emergency (Report No. DOT HS 813 018).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    \vi\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019. National
Center for Health Statistics. Therapeutic Drug Use. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/drug-use-therapeutic.htm.
    \vii\ Smith, R., Turturici, M. and Camden, M. 2018.
Countermeasures Against Prescription and Over-the-Counter-Impaired
Driving. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Washington, DC. http://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/VTTI_Rx_OTC_FinalReport_VTTI-FINAL-complete-9.20.pdf.
    \viii\ Alda, A., Pharm, D., and Morse, M. 2008. Multiple
Medications and vehicle Crashes: Analysis of Databases. DOT HS 810
858. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Washington, DC.
    \ix\ Current legislation (Section 25025, Pub. L. 17-58)
references the definition of marijuana in the F.A.S.T. Act, Section
4008 (d). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/html/PLAW-114publ94.htm.
    \x\ National Institutes of Health. 2015. Prevalence of Marijuana
Use Among U.S. Adults Doubles Over Past Decade. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/prevalence-marijuana-use-among-us-adults-doubles-over-past-decade.
    \xi\ National Institutes of Health. 2022. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/what-scope-marijuana-use-in-united-states.
    \xii\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Alcohol and drugs:
Marijuana laws. https://www.iihs.org/topics/alcohol-and-drugs.
    \xiii\ Grondel, D., Hoff, S., and Doane, D. Marijuana Use,
Alcohol Use and Driving in Washington State. 2018.Washington Traffic
Safety Commission. http://wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2018/05/Marijuana-and-Alcohol-Involvement-in-Fatal-Crashes-in-WA_FINAL.pdf.
    \xiv\ Ramirez, A., Berning, A., Carr, K., Schere, M., Lacey, J.,
Kelley-Baker, T., and Fisher, D. 2016. Marijuana, Other Drugs, and
Alcohol Use by Drivers in Washington State. DOT HS 812 299. National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Washington, DC. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812299-washingtonstatedrugstudy.pdf.

    \xv\ Compton, R. 2017. Marijuana-Impaired Driving: A Report to
Congress. DOT HS 812 440. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Washington, DC. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/812440-marijuana-impaired-driving-report-to-congress.pdf.
    \xvi\ Compton, R., Vegega, M., and Smither, D. 2009. Drug-
Impaired Driving: Understanding the Problem and Ways to Reduce It--A
Report to Congress. DOT HS 811 268. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Washington, DC. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/1949.
    \xvii\ Blincoe, L.J., Miller, T.R., Zaloshnja, E., & Lawrence,
B.A. (2015, May). The economic and societal impact of motor vehicle
crashes, 2010 (Revised) (Report No. DOT HS 812 013). Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    \xviii\ Berning, A. and Smither, D. 2014. Understanding the
Limitations of Drug Test Information, Reporting, and Testing
Practices in Fatal Crashes. Traffic Safety Facts Research Note DOT
HS 812 072. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Washington, DC. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812072-understandlimitsdrugtest-researchnote.pdf.
    \xix\ Limoges, J., Tandy, A., and Brown, H. 2009. A
Retrospective Study of Drug Prevalence in Alcohol Related Driving
Arrests. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of
Forensic Sciences.
    \xx\ Berning, A., Smith, R.C., Drexler, M., & Wochinger, K.
(2022, March). Drug testing and traffic safety: What you need to
know (Report No. DOT HS 813 264). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
    \xxi\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Governors
Highway Safety Association, and Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center. 2017. Impact of the Legalization and
Decriminalization of Marijuana on the DWI System: Highlights from
the Expert Panel Meeting. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Washington, DC. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/expert_dwi_panel.pdf.
    \xxii\ Hedlund, J. 2017. Drug-Impaired Driving: A Guide for the
States. Governors Highway Safety Association and Foundation for
Advancing Alcohol Responsibility. https://www.ghsa.org/resources/drugged-driving-2017.
    \xxiii\ Hedlund, J. 2018. Drug-Impaired Driving: Marijuana and
Opioids Raise Critical Issues for States. Governors Highway Safety
Association and Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility.
https://www.ghsa.org/resources/DUID18.
    \xxiv\ 2013 NTSB Report, Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate
Alcohol-Impaired Driving (https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SR1301.pdf).
    \xxv\ 2018 NTSB Report, Pickup Truck Centerline Crossover
Collision With Medium Size Bus on US Highway 83, Concan, Texas,
March 29, 2017 (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1802.pdf).
    \xxvi\ D'Orazio, A., Scott, K., Mohr, A. and Logan, B. 2016.
Updates for Recommendations for Drug testing in DUID & Traffic
Fatality Investigations. The Center for Forensic Science Research &
Education at the Frederic Rieders Family Foundation, 2300 Stratford
Avenue, Willow Grove, PA 19090. https://www.forensicscienceeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Full-Survey-Report.pdf.
    \xxvii\ Logan, B., Lowrie, K., Turri, J., Yeakel, Limoges, J.,
Miles, A., Scarneo, C., Kerrigan, S., and Farrell, L. 2013.
Recommendations for Toxicological Investigation of Drug-Impaired
Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities. Journal of Analytical
Toxicology. Volume 37. August 2013, Pages 552-558.
    \xxviii\ Logan, B., D'Orazio, A., Mohr, A., Limoges, J., Miles,
A., Scarneo, C., Kerrigan, S., Liddicoat, L., Scott, K., and
Huestis, M. 2018. Recommendations for Toxicological Investigation of
Drug-Impaired Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities--2017 Update.
Journal of Analytical Toxicology. Volume 42. Issue 2. March 2018,
Pages 63-68. https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/42/2/63/4653729.
    \xxix\ D'Orazio, A., Mohr, A., Chan-Hosokawa, A., Harper, C.,
Huestis, M., Limoges, J., Miles, A., Scarno, C., Kerrigan, S.,
Liddicoat, L., Scott, K., Logan, B. Recommendations for
Toxicological Investigation of Drug-Impaired Driving and Motor
Vehicle Fatalities--2021 Update. Journal of Analytical Toxicology.
July, 2021. 45(6):529-536. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34086916/.
    \xxx\ Watson, M.W. and Mann, R.E. 2018. Harm reduction and drug-
impaired driving: sharing the road?. Drugs: Education Prevention and
Policy. 25:2, 105-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2017.1344620.
    \xxxi\ Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law
114-94, 4009 (2015).

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Nanda Narayanan Srinivasan,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2022-08776 Filed 4-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3758-3759]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1411]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC12-58-000.
    Applicants: Endure Energy, L.L.C.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, and Request for Confidential Treatment, Expedited
Consideration and Waivers of Endure Energy, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5360.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER11-3274-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35:
Attachment H Schedule 7 Compliance Filing to be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5304.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3967-003
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35: Errata Filing to Order No. 741 Compliance Filing to be effective
10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5233.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4266-003.
    Applicants: Richland-Stryker Generation LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Richland-
Stryker Generation LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5363.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4423-001.
    Applicants: Lockport Energy Associates, L.P.
    Description: Supplemental Information of Lockport Energy
Associates, L.P.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-721-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Errata Filing to Correct Admin Error in Tariff Record--Docket
No. ER12-721-000 to be effective 2/29/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5243.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-811-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company submits tariff filing
per 35: Compliance filing of FPL and Seminole Electric Cooperative,
Inc. to SA No. 162 to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5303.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-812-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: El Paso Electric Company submits tariff filing per
35.1: Arizona Nuclear Power Project (ANPP) Agreements to be effective
1/13/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5307.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-813-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2166R1 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be
effective 12/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5330.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-814-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company submits tariff filing
per 35.1: FPL Lee County Electric Cooperative, Inc. RS No. 324 to be
effective 3/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5336.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:
    Docket Numbers: QF12-159-000.
    Applicants: City of Kinston, NC.
    Description: FERC Form 556 of City of Kinston--West Pharmaceutical
Project.
    Filed Date: 1/12/12.
    Accession Number: 20120112-5170.
    Comments Due: None Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1411 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

General Comment:I have been using ecigarettes for the last two years.  It's what finally got me completely off of all tobacco products and more healthy in the process.  I would like to ask that the comment period be extended to at least 180 days, as there are a lot of people who should weigh in on any legislation that is proposed.