[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12771-12773]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64009; File No. SR-BX-2011-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
BOX Trading Rules To Expand the Short Term Option Series Program

March 2, 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 March 1, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') 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 the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IV, Section 6 (Series of
Options Contracts Open for Trading) and Chapter XIV, Section 10 (Terms
of Index Option Contracts) of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange
Group, LLC (``BOX'') to expand the Short Term Option Series Program
(``Weeklys Program'') so that BOX may select fifteen option classes on
which Weekly options may be opened. The text of the proposed rule
change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Chapter IV,
Section 6 (Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading) and Chapter
XIV, Section 10 (Terms of Index Option Contracts) of the Rules of the
Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') to expand the Short Term
Option Series Program (``Weeklys Program'') so that BOX may select
fifteen option classes on which Weekly options may be opened.\3\ The
Weeklys Program is codified in the Supplementary Material to the BOX
Rules Sections identified above. These rules provide that after an
option class has been approved for listing and trading on BOX, BOX may
open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day
series of options on no more than five option classes that expire on
the Friday of the following business week that is a business day. In
addition to the five-option class limitation, there is also a
limitation that no more than twenty series for each expiration date in
those classes that may be opened for trading.\4\ Furthermore, the
strike price of each Weekly option has to be fixed with approximately
the same number of strike prices being opened above and below the value
of the underlying security at about the time that the Weekly options
are initially opened for trading on BOX, and with strike prices being
within thirty percent (30%) above or below the closing price of the
underlying security from the preceding day. The Exchange does not
propose any changes to these additional Weeklys Program limitations.
The Exchange proposes only to increase from five to fifteen the number
of option classes that may be opened pursuant to the Weeklys Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange's Weeklys Program became effective on July 15,
2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62505 (July 15, 2010),
75 FR 42792 (July 22, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-047).
    \4\ However, if BOX opens less than twenty (20) Weekly options
for a Weekly Option Expiration Date, additional series may be opened
for trading on BOX when the Exchange deems it necessary to maintain
an orderly market, to meet customer demand or when the market price
of the underlying security moves substantially from the exercise
price or prices of the series already opened. Any additional strike
prices listed by the Exchange shall be within thirty percent (30%)
above or below the current price of the underlying security. BOX may
also open additional strike prices of Weekly Option Series that are
more than 30% above or below the current price of the underlying
security provided that demonstrated customer interest exists for
such series, as expressed by institutional, corporate or individual
customers or their brokers (market-makers trading for their own
account shall not be considered when determining customer interest
under this provision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal reason for the proposed expansion is customer demand
for adding, or not removing, Weekly option classes from the Program.
Since there is reciprocity in matching other exchanges' Weekly option
choices, BOX discontinues trading Weekly option classes that other
exchanges change from week-to-week. BOX believes that these class pick
changes have negatively impacted investors and traders, particularly
retail public customers, who have, on occasion requested that BOX add
Weekly option classes.
    BOX understands that a retail investor recently requested another
exchange to reinstate a Weekly option class that the exchange had
removed from trading because of the five-class option limit within the
Weekly Program. The investor advised that the removed class was a
powerful tool for hedging a market sector, and that various strategies
that the investor put into play were disrupted and eliminated when the
class was removed. BOX feels that it is essential that such negative,
potentially very costly impacts on retail investors are eliminated by
modestly expanding the Program to enable additional classes to be
traded.
    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, BOX
has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price
Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems capacity to
handle the potential additional traffic associated with trading of an
expanded number of classes in the Weeklys Program.
    BOX believes that the Weeklys Program has provided investors with
greater trading opportunities and flexibility and the ability to more
closely tailor their investment and risk management strategies and
decisions. Furthermore, BOX has had to eliminate option classes on
numerous occasions because of the limitation imposed by the

Program.\5\ For these reasons, the Exchange requests an expansion of
the current Weeklys Program and the opportunity to provide investors
with additional short term option classes for investment, trading, and
risk management purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As discussed above, because of the reciprocity provision of
the Weeklys Program, the classes that BOX lists to participate in
the Weeklys Program change when another exchange changes its class
selections for the Weeklys Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission has requested, and BOX has agreed for the
purposes of this filing, to submit a report to the Commission providing
an analysis of the Weeklys Program (the ``Report''). The Report will
cover the period from the date of effectiveness of the Weeklys Program
through January 2011, and will describe the experience of BOX with the
Weeklys Program in respect of the options classes that BOX included in
such program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Report would include the following: (1) Data and written
analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for
which Short Term Option Series were opened; (2) an assessment of the
appropriateness of the option classes selected for the Weeklys
Program; (3) an assessment of the impact of the Weeklys Program on
the capacity of BOX, OPRA, and market data vendors (to the extent
data from market data vendors is available); (4) any capacity
problems or other problems that arose during the operation of the
Weeklys Program and how BOX addressed such problems; (5) any
complaints that BOX or the Exchange received during the operation of
the Weeklys Program and how they were addressed; and (6) any
additional information that would assist in assessing the operation
of the Weeklys Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Report will be submitted on a confidential basis under separate
cover at the same time as this proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \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 mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that expanding
the number of classes eligible to participate in the Weeklys Program
will allow the investing public and other market participants to better
manage their risk exposure, and would benefit investors by giving them
more flexibility to closely tailor their investment decisions in a
greater number of securities. While the expansion of the Weeklys
Program will generate additional quote traffic, BOX does not believe
that this increased traffic will become unmanageable since the proposal
is limited to a fixed number of classes. Further, BOX does not believe
that the proposal will result in a material proliferation of additional
series because it is limited to a fixed number of classes and BOX does
not believe that the additional price points will result in fractured
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 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 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 has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal is substantially similar to that of
another exchange that has been approved by the Commission.\11\
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63875 (February 9,
2011), 76 FR 8793 (February 15, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2010-183) (order
approving expansion of Short Term Option Program).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2011-014 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-014. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and

copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-014 and should be submitted on
or before March 29, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5141 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EPA Response to OMB EO12866 Interagency Review Comments on E012866AircraftEmissions2060A070NPRMrule20110120
                                March 25, 2011
                  Redline/Strikeout on or beginning on Page #
                               Section Reference
                                    Comment
                                      74
III.B.2.a.
The annual report on exempt spare engines goes to EPA only. Same revision for new exemptions on p. 90
                                      76
III.B.2.b.
No new tracking system is contemplated for exempted spare engines.
                                      80
III.B.2.b.ii.
Rationale for why EPA is different from ETM guidance relative to 75 per type certificate holder versus 75 per type certificate, respectively, and how the EPA position was developed.
                                      91
III.B.2.b.iii.
Exemption requests go only to FAA and FAA will share with EPA.
                                      98
III.B.2.c.
Voluntary emission offsets is solely an EPA program.
                                      101
III.C.
Describes derivative engines using ICAO and FAA terminology.
                                      102
III.C.
EPA rationale for codifying the ETM guidance language on derivative engine emission decision criteria, and that FAA has flexibility to adjust the criteria based on good engineering judgment.
                                      106
III.D.
The annual production report goes to EPA only.  Footnotes expand on this and also describe why FAA is encumbered from providing much of the information to EPA.
                                      131
IV.C.
Revised table to improve description of Armed Services aircraft
                                      135
V.
Explains why no economic analysis prepared and adds there is some limited benefit to manufacturers to codify emission ICAO standards. Similar discussion added to IX.A.
                                      137
V.
Makes production report burden and cost estimate more overt. Similar addition to IX.A.
                                      151
IX.E.
Revised E.O. 13132 content


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34603-34605]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0436]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Umatilla Marina, Umatilla, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for certain waters of Umatilla Marina. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Umatilla,
OR, during a fireworks display on June 25th, 2022. This proposed
rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River or a
designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0436 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Sean Murphy, Waterways Management
Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-
9319, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Columbia River
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On March 07, 2022, Western Display Fireworks, LTD notified the
Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 10 to
10:30 p.m. on June 25, 2022. The fireworks are to be launched from a
site on land in the Umatilla Marina, OR. Hazards from firework displays
include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and
falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Columbia
River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
fireworks would be a safety concern for anyone within a 400-foot radius
of the launch site before, during, or after the fireworks display.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within a 400-foot radius of the fireworks
discharge site before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast
Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 9:30 to 11
p.m. on June 25, 2022. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters
within 400 feet of the launch site located at approximately
45[deg]55'37.50'' N, 119[deg]19'47.60'' W in the Umatilla Marina,
Oregon. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of
vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the
scheduled 10 to 10:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would
be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are
proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. The safety zone created by
this proposed rule is designed to minimize its impact on navigable
waters. The safety zone will impact approximately a 400 foot area of
Umatilla Marina and is not anticipated to exceed 1.5 hours in duration.
Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are
expected to be minimal. Moreover, under certain conditions vessels may
still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the COTP. The
Coast Guard would issue a Notice to Mariners about the zone, and the
rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.
    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 proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small

entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. 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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of
this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting 1.5 hours that would prohibit entry within 400 feet of a
fireworks launch site. Normally such actions are categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0436 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0436 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0436   Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Umatilla Marina,
Umatilla, OR.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters within 400 feet of a fireworks launch site in Umatilla, OR. The
fireworks launch site will be at the approximate point of
45[deg]55'37.50'' N, 119[deg]19'47.60'' W.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Columbia River
(COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone. Participant means all
persons and vessels registered with the event sponsor as a participant
in the fireworks display.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, all non-participants may not enter the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless

authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or the Sector Columbia River
Command Center on Channel 16 VHF-FM. Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through
advanced notice via broadcast notice to mariners and by on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 09:30 to
11 p.m. on June 25, 2022. It will be subject to enforcement this entire
period unless the COTP determines it is no longer needed, in which case
the Coast Guard will inform mariners via Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: May 25, 2022.
G.M. Bailey,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2022-11813 Filed 6-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30775-30776]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10812]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88868; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify the Implementation Date for a Recent Rule Change Modifying the
Delisting Process for Certain Securities With a Bid Price at or Below
$0.10 or That Have Had Reverse Stock Splits With a Cumulative Ratio of
250 or More to One Over the Prior Two-Year Period

May 14, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 1, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the implementation date and process
for rule changes adopted in SR-Nasdaq-2020-001.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On January 2, 2020, Nasdaq filed with the Commission a proposed
rule change to modify the delisting process for securities with a bid
price at or below $0.10 and for securities that have had one or more
reverse stock splits with a cumulative ratio of 250 shares or more to
one over the prior two year period.\3\ The Commission approved this
proposed rule change on April 21, 2020.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87982 (January 15,
2020), 85 FR 3736 (January 22, 2020) (SR-Nasdaq-2020-001).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88716 (April 21, 2020),
85 FR 23393 (April 27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, Nasdaq stated that this rule change would be
implemented for companies that first receive notification of
noncompliance with the bid price requirement after the date of the
Commission's approval of the changes. However, Nasdaq does not believe
it is appropriate to implement this new requirement, which would affect
low priced stocks, during a time when the U.S. and global equities
markets have experienced unprecedented market-wide declines as a result
of the ongoing spread of the COVID-19 virus and companies face highly
unusual market conditions.\5\ Accordingly, Nasdaq is filing this rule
change to delay the implementation date and process for the changes
adopted in SR-Nasdaq-2020-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88685 (April 17,
2020), 85 FR 22777 (April 23, 2020) (permitting companies a longer
period of time to regain compliance with Nasdaq's bid price and
market value of publicly held shares continued listing requirements
by tolling the compliance periods through and including June 30,
2020, due to market disruptions caused by the COVID-19 virus).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As revised, Nasdaq will implement these rule changes for companies
that first receive notification of noncompliance with the bid price
requirement on or after September 1, 2020. A company that receives
notification of non-compliance prior to that date will not be subject
to the rule changes.
    While Nasdaq rules may allow a company two 180-day periods to
regain compliance with the bid price requirement in certain
circumstances, a company is not eligible for the second compliance
period ``if it does not appear to Nasdaq that it is possible for the
Company to cure the deficiency.'' \6\ As is currently the case, Nasdaq
may rely upon this language to deny the second compliance period to a
company with a very low stock price or that has engaged in significant
prior reverse stock splits, even though the company is not yet subject
to the rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Listing Rules 5810(c)(3)(A)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Until all companies are subject to the rule changes, Nasdaq will
include a statement at the start of Rule 5810 and Rule 5815 explaining
that the rule was recently amended, describing the nature of the
amendment, and specifying the effective date for the rule changes,
along with a link to the revised rules. Starting September 1, 2020,
Rules 5810 and 5815 will reflect the rule changes, but until all
companies are subject to the rule changes Nasdaq will include a
statement at the start of Rule 5810 and Rule 5815 explaining that the
rule was recently amended, describing the nature of the amendment, and
specifying the effective date for the rule changes, along with a link
to the rules as they existed before the amendment.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by delaying the implementation date of the rule changes in light of
market declines and disruptions as a result of the COVID-19 virus and
actions taken to address the pandemic. Until these rule changes are
implemented, Nasdaq will continue to apply its prior rules and,
notwithstanding the proposed delay in implementing the effective date
of the rule changes, would not provide a company with a second 180-day
compliance period for a bid price deficiency if it does not appear to
Nasdaq that it is possible for the company to cure the deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
impacts unique Nasdaq listing rules. While Nasdaq does not believe
there will be any impact on competition from the rule changes or the
proposed change to the

implementation schedule of the rule changes, any impact on competition
that does arise from the revised implementation schedule is necessary
to reflect concerns about market conditions in light of the COVID-19
pandemic.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its 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 pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \11\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the
Commission to 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 upon filing. The Exchange stated that
such waiver would ensure that there is no confusion about the
implementation schedule for the rule change. The Exchange further
stated that it believes waiver is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it would merely provide a
delay, until September 1, 2020, in the implementation of an approved
rule change due to the highly unusual market conditions resulting from
the ongoing spread of the COVID-19 virus. The Exchange further noted
that investors will continue to be protected by Nasdaq's other bid
price rules, which will continue to apply during that time, subject to
a temporary tolling of compliance periods through and including June
30, 2020, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposal is a temporary measure to
delay the effectiveness of an approved rule change until September 1,
2020 in light of current market conditions. Further, Nasdaq's existing
bid price rules will continue to apply, including its ability to deny a
company a second compliance period if it does not appear to Nasdaq that
it is possible for the company to cure the deficiency. The waiver of
the operative delay will also help to ensure that all companies have
the same rules applied to them as to bid price deficiencies as of the
date of the filing of this rule change to delay the implementation date
of the new rules. For these reasons, the Commission believes that
waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-024. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-024 and should be submitted
on or before June 10, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10812 Filed 5-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 67827]
[FR Doc No: C1-2015-26577]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76156; File No. SR-BYX-2015-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 3.22, Concerning Gifts and Gratuities in Relation to the Business
of the Employer of the Recipient, and Renaming the Rule ``Influencing
or Rewarding Employees of Others''

October 15, 2015.

Correction

    In notice document 2015-26577, appearing on pages 63624-63626 in
the issue of Tuesday, October 20, 2015, make the following correction:
    On page 63626, in the third column, in the twenty-eighth line from
the top, ``October 23, 2015'' should read ``November 10, 2015''.

[FR Doc. C1-2015-26577 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78553-78554]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30563]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Consensus Standards, Inspection and Maintenance of Aircraft
Electrical Wiring Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of two revised
consensus standards relating to inspection and maintenance of aircraft
electrical wiring systems. ASTM International Committee F39 on Aircraft
Systems developed the revised standards with Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) participation. The consensus standards provide
acceptable methods and procedures for inspection and maintenance of
electrical wiring systems for normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter
category airplanes. By this notice, the FAA finds the revised standards
as acceptable means of compliance to 14 CFR part 23 sections concerning
electrical wiring systems.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Small
Airplane Directorate, Continued Operational Safety, ACE-111, Attention:
James Brady, Room 301, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Specify
the standard being addressed by ASTM designation and title. Mark all
comments: Consensus Standards Comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Brady, Aerospace Engineer,
Regulations and Policy Branch (ACE-111), Small Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901
Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-
4132; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces the availability of
two revised consensus standards that supersede previously accepted
consensus standards relating to inspection and maintenance of aircraft
electrical wiring systems. ASTM International Committee F39 on Aircraft
Systems developed the revised standards. The FAA expects a suitable
consensus standard to be reviewed periodically. This review cycle will
result in a standard revision or reapproval. A standard is revised to
make changes to its technical content or is reapproved to indicate a
review cycle

has been completed with no technical changes. A standard is issued
under a fixed designation (e.g., F2696); the number immediately
following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or,
in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in
parentheses following the year of original adoption or revision
indicates the year of last reapproval. For example, F2353-05(2013)
designates a standard that was originally adopted (or revised) in 2005
and reapproved in 2013. A superscript epsilon ([egr]) indicates an
editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. A notice of
availability (NOA) will only be issued for new or revised standards.
Reapproved standards issued with no technical changes or standards
issued with editorial changes only (i.e., superscript epsilon ([egr]))
are considered accepted by the FAA without need for an NOA.
    Comments Invited: Interested persons are invited to submit such
written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Communications
should identify the consensus standard number and be submitted to the
address specified above. All standards-related comments received on or
before the closing date for comments will be forwarded to ASTM
International Committee F39 for consideration. The standard may be
changed in light of the comments received. The FAA will address all
comments received during the recurring review of the consensus standard
and will participate in the consensus standard revision process.
    Background: Under the provisions of the revised Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, ``Federal Participation in
the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities,'' dated February 10, 1998, industry
and the FAA have been working with ASTM International to develop
consensus standards for the design, fabrication, modification,
inspection, and maintenance of electrical systems installed on normal
and utility category airplanes.
    These consensus standards satisfy the FAA's goal for airworthiness
certification and a verifiable minimum safety level for normal,
utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes. The FAA
participates as a member of Committee F39 in developing these
standards. The use of the consensus standard process assures government
and industry discussion and agreement on appropriate standards for the
required level of safety.

The Consensus Standards

    The FAA finds the following new consensus standards acceptable for
normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes. The
consensus standards listed below may be used unless the FAA publishes a
specific notification otherwise.
    ASTM Designation F2696-14, titled: Standard Practice for Inspection
of Aircraft Electrical Wiring Systems
    ASTM Designation F2799-14, titled: Standard Practice for
Maintenance of Aircraft Electrical Wiring Systems

Availability

    ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 copyrights these consensus standards.
Individual reprints of this standard (single or multiple copies, or
special compilations and other related technical information) may be
obtained by contacting ASTM at this address, or at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), through<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(email), or
through the ASTM Web site at http://www.astm.org. To inquire about
standard content and/or membership or about ASTM International Offices
abroad, contact Christine DeJong, Staff Manager for Committee F39 on
Aircraft Systems:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 16, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-30563 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5870-5873]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0381]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
requirement; request for comments.

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

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

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0381 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-(202) 493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The nineteen individuals
listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from
the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will
evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether
granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety
mandated by the statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Roger L. Arcand, Jr.

    Mr. Arcand, 48, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Arcand understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Arcand meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class 10 operator's license from Rhode Island.

Marsha M. Colberg

    Ms. Colberg, 61, has had ITDM since 2010. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2011 and certified that she has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Colberg that she understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Colberg meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined
her in 2011 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy.
She holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

Robert D. Crissinger

    Mr. Crissinger, 60, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in

impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past
12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in
the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Crissinger
understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Crissinger meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Scott W. Forsyth, Jr.

    Mr. Forsyth, 28, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Forsyth understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Forsyth meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado.

Jose A. Garcia

    Mr. Garcia, 51, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Garcia understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Garcia meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class D operator's license from New York.

Fritz D. Gregory

    Mr. Gregory, 55, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gregory understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gregory meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.

Gordon R. Kellogg

    Mr. Kellogg, 53, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kellogg understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kellogg meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Anthony P. Kesselring

    Mr. Kesselring, 48, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kesselring understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kesselring meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida.

Don R. Kivi

    Mr. Kivi, 53, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kivi understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kivi meets the vision requirements
of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
A CDL from North Dakota.

Vincent Ligotti

    Mr. Ligotti, 42, has had ITDM since 1975. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ligotti understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ligotti meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from New York.

Larry D. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 60, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Miller understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Miller meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Michael R. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 36, has had ITDM since 1983. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the

assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Miller understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Miller meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2011 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Jack L. Phippen

    Mr. Phippen, 54, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Phippen understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Phippen meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class D operator's license from Wisconsin.

Richard A. Purk

    Mr. Purk, 25, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Purk understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Purk meets the vision requirements
of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
C Operator's license from California.

Timothy M. Rearick

    Mr. Rearick, 31, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rearick understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rearick meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class C operator's license from Pennsylvania.

Jeremy Simmons

    Mr. Simmons, 27, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Simmons understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Simmons meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Massachusetts.

Jack A. Tidey

    Mr. Tidey, 37, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tidey understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tidey meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class D operator's license from Arkansas.

Brian E. Quick

    Mr. Quick, 33, has had ITDM since 1979. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Quick understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Quick meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2011 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class M operator's license from Virginia.

Timothy W. Work

    Mr. Work, 48, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Work understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Work meets the vision requirements
of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
A CDL from New York.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Issued on: January 26, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-2503 Filed 2-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P