[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47630-47635]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19856]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65002; File No. SR-ISE-2011-50]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Market Data Fees

August 1, 2011.
    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 August 1, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The 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 its Schedule of Fees to adopt
subscription fees for the sale of two market data offerings, the ISE
Top Quote Feed and the ISE Spread Book Feed. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site http://www.ise.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 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
    ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to adopt subscription
fees for the sale of two market data offerings, the ISE Top Quote Feed
and the ISE Spread Book Feed. The Exchange previously submitted a
proposed rule change to establish the two data feeds.\3\ The Exchange
proposes to implement the proposed fees for both market data offerings
on August 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-ISE-2011-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISE Top Quote Feed
    The ISE Top Quote Feed (``Top Quote'') is a real-time feed that
aggregates all quotes and orders at the top price level on the
Exchange, on both the bid and offer side of the market. Top Quote
provides subscribers with a consolidated view of tradable prices at the
BBO, the same data that is displayed on the OPRA feed. Top Quote shows
bid/ask quote size for Customer and Professional Customer option orders
for ISE traded options that are not currently distinguishable through
the OPRA feed.\4\ The identification of Customer orders is useful for
market makers and market participants generally since Customer orders
take precedence over all other order types on the ISE. The Exchange
believes it is not discriminatory or a burden on competition for these
orders to be identified because doing so increases the likelihood that
these orders will be executed as they have priority on the ISE while
Professional Customers, i.e., persons or entities that (i) Are not a
broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) place more than 390 orders in
listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own
beneficial account(s), do not have priority on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Customer and Professional Customer orders are identified in
a number of market data offerings currently sold by other options
exchanges on a subscription basis. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 63351 (November 10, 2010), 75 FR 73140 (November 29,
2010) (SR-PHLX-2010-154) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fees for the PHOTO
Historical Data Product). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 63997 (March 1, 2011), 76 FR 12388 (March 7, 2011) (SR-CBOE-
2011-014) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Codify a Fee Schedule for the Sale by Market Data
Express, LLC, of a BBO Data Feed for CBOE Listed Options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Top Quote is currently imbedded in the Exchange's Depth of Market
data feed offering and is available to subscribers of the Depth of
Market data feed offering. With this proposed rule change, the Exchange
is offering Top Quote as a separate subscription-based data feed. Top
Quote will be available to members and non-members, and to both
professional and non-professional subscribers.
Proposed Fees for Top Quote
    The Exchange proposes to charge distributors \5\ of Top Quote
$3,000 per month. In addition, the Exchange proposes to charge a
monthly controlled device \6\ fee of $20 per controlled device for
Professionals at a distributor where the data is for internal and/or
external use. There are no monthly controlled device fees proposed for
Non-Professionals subscribers to Top Quote. Further, the Exchange
proposes to adopt an enterprise license fee, regardless of the number
of controlled devices, as follows: (i) $4,000 for Professionals at a
distributor where the data is for internal use only, (ii) $5,000 for
Professionals at a distributor where the data is for internal and/or
external use in a controlled device and (iii) $3,000 per month for Non-
Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ISE proposes that a ``distributor'' be defined as any firm
that receives a ISE data feed directly from ISE or indirectly
through a vendor and then distributes it either internally or
externally. Further, ISE proposes that all distributors execute an
ISE distributor agreement.
    \6\ ISE proposes that a ``controlled device'' be defined as any
device that a distributor of the ISE Top Quote Feed permits to: (a)
Access the information in the Top Quote Feed offering, or (b)
communicate with the distributor so as to cause the distributor to
access the information in the Top Quote Feed offering. If a
controlled device is part of an electronic network between computers
used for investment, trading or order routing activities, the burden
will be on the distributor to demonstrate that the particular
controlled device should not be subject to the proposed fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISE Spread Book Feed
    The ISE Spread Book Feed (``Spread Feed'') is a real-time feed that
consists

of options quotes and orders for all complex orders (i.e., spreads,
buy-writes, delta neutral strategies, etc.) aggregated at the top price
level on both the bid and offer side of the market as well as all
aggregated quotes and orders for complex orders at the top five price
levels on both the bid and offer side of the market. In addition, the
Spread Feed provides real-time updates every time a new complex limit
order that is not immediately executable at the BBO is placed on the
ISE complex order book. The Spread Feed shows bid/ask quote size for
Customer and Professional Customer option orders for ISE traded
options. As noted above, since Customer orders take precedence over all
other order types, the identification of these orders in the Spread
Feed is useful information for market makers and market participants
generally. Again, the Exchange believes it is not discriminatory or a
burden on competition for these orders to be identified because doing
so increases the likelihood that these orders will be executed as they
have priority on the ISE while Professional Customers, i.e., persons or
entities that (i) Are not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during
a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s), do not have
priority on the Exchange.
    The Exchange further notes that ISE Market Makers currently receive
a spread book data feed as part of their membership. Pursuant to this
proposed rule change, however, all recipients, including ISE Market
Makers, will be subject to the proposed fees to access the Spread Feed.
The Spread Feed will be available to members and non-members and to
both professional and non-professional subscribers and will not be
available on a non-subscription basis.
Proposed Fees for Spread Feed
    The Exchange proposes to charge distributors of Spread Feed $3,000
per month. In addition, the Exchange proposes to charge a monthly
controlled device \7\ fee of $25 per controlled device for
Professionals at a distributor where the data is for internal and/or
external use. There are no monthly controlled device fees proposed for
Non-Professionals subscribers to the Spread Feed. Further, the Exchange
proposes to adopt an enterprise license fee, regardless of the number
of controlled devices, as follows: (i) $4,250 for Professionals at a
distributor where the data is for internal use only, (ii) $5,500 for
Professionals at a distributor where the data is for internal and/or
external use in a controlled device, and (iii) $3,000 for Non-
Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ISE proposes that a ``controlled device'' be defined as any
device that a distributor of the ISE Spread Feed permits to: (a)
Access the information in the Spread Feed offering, or (b)
communicate with the distributor so as to cause the distributor to
access the information in the Spread Feed offering. If a controlled
device is part of an electronic network between computers used for
investment, trading or order routing activities, the burden will be
on the distributor to demonstrate that the particular controlled
device should not be subject to the proposed fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multi-Product Subscription Discount
    The Exchange currently offers two real-time market data feed
offerings, the ISE Depth of Market Data Feed \8\ and the ISE Order
Feed.\9\ With the addition of the Spread Feed and Top Quote, the
Exchange will have four fee-liable real-time market data feed
offerings. In order to encourage subscriptions to multiple market data
feeds, ISE proposes to adopt a multi-product subscription discount, as
follows: Ten percent (10%) discount for subscribers who subscribe to
two feeds and twenty percent (20%) discount for subscribers who
subscribe to three feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59949 (May 20,
2009), 74 FR 25593 (May 28, 2009) (SR-ISE-2007-97) (Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market Data Fees).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62399 (June 28,
2010), 75 FR 38587 (July 2, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-34) (Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fees for the ISE Order Feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4)
that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees
and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general,
and with Sections 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which ISE operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \12\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The fees charged would be the
same for all market participants, and therefore do not unreasonably
discriminate among market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 4173,
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other
things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are immediately
effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees, or other
charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both.
Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the
Exchange Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-
day period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule
change in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section
19(b)], the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in
the rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes
such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph

(2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should
be approved or disapproved.''
    ISE believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the Act reflect
Congress's intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the forces of
competition to ensure that fees for market data are reasonable and
equitably allocated. Although Section 19(b) had formerly authorized
immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the
self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a policy and
subsequently a rule stipulating that fees for data and other products
available to persons that are not members of the self-regulatory
organization must be approved by the Commission after first being
published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the
adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike
members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. ISE
believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress's
conclusion that the evolution of self-regulatory organization
governance and competitive market structure have rendered the
Commission's prior policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically,
many exchanges have evolved from member-owned not-for-profit
corporations into for-profit investor-owned corporations (or
subsidiaries of investor-owned corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no
longer have narrow incentives to manage their affairs for the exclusive
benefit of their members, but rather have incentives to maximize the
appeal of their products to all customers, whether members or
nonmembers, so as to broaden distribution and grow revenues. Moreover,
we believe that the change also reflects an endorsement of the
Commission's determinations that reliance on competitive markets is an
appropriate means to ensure equitable and reasonable prices. Simply
put, the change reflects a presumption that all fee changes should be
permitted to take effect immediately, since the level of all fees are
constrained by competitive forces.
    The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoaliton v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (DC
Cir. 2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.' '' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NetCoaltion, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92
(1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court's conclusions about Congressional intent are therefore
reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act amendments, which create a presumption
that exchange fees, including market data fees, may take effect
immediately, without prior Commission approval, and that the Commission
should take action to suspend a fee change and institute a proceeding
to determine whether the fee change should be approved or disapproved
only where the Commission has concerns that the change may not be
consistent with the Act.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed market data fees are
consistent with the requirements of the Act for several reasons. First,
the Exchange notes that the categories of Top Quote and Spread Feed
market data and fees compare favorably with similar products offered by
other markets such as NASDAQ Stock Market (``NASDAQ''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX
(``Phlx''), and Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE''). For example,
NASDAQ offers a market data product that is similar to Top Quote: a
data feed that shows the top of the market entitled Best of NASDAQ
Options (``BONO\SM\).\15\ Phlx also offers a market data feed, entitled
Top of Phlx Options (``TOPO''), which is similar to Top Quote. TOPO
shows orders and quotes at the top of the market, as well as
trades.\16\ Lastly, a subsidiary of CBOE for which CBOE charges fees
offers a market data product that is similar to Spread Feed. The CBOE
BBO Data Feed includes, among other things, customer versus non-
customer contracts at the BBO and BBO data and last sale data for
complex strategies (e.g., spreads, straddles, buy-writes, etc.).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ BONO has a monthly base access fee of $1,500 plus a $5 user
fee for internal use professionals; a monthly base access fee of
$2,000 plus (i) a $5 user fee for internal use professionals or,
(ii) $1 user fee for internal use non-professionals. NASDAQ also has
a monthly enterprise license fee of $2,500. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 64652 (June 13, 2011), 76 FR 35498 (June 17, 2011)
(SR-NASDAQ-2011-075).
    \16\ TOPO has a monthly fee of $2,000 per firm for internal use
and a monthly fee of $2,500 per firm for internal and external use.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60459 (August 7, 2009), 74
FR 41466 (August 17, 2009) (SR-PHLX-2009-54).
    \17\ The subsidiary is identified as Market Data Express, LLC
(``MDX'') by CBOE, which indicates that the feed will also provide
data regarding contingency orders and complex strategies, the latter
being comparable to the Spread Feed proposed by this rule filing.
The monthly fee charged by CBOE for the data is $3,500 plus a $25
per user or device fee. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
63997 (March 1, 2011), 76 FR 12388 (March 7, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-
014) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Codify a Fee Schedule for the Sale by Market Data Express,
LLC, of a BBO Data Feed for CBOE Listed Options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee for Top Quote and
Spread Feed are consistent with the requirements of the Act because
competition provides an effective constraint on the market data fees
that the Exchange has the ability and the incentive to charge. ISE has
a compelling need to attract order flow from market participants in
order to maintain its share of trading volume. This compelling need to
attract order flow imposes significant pressure on ISE to act
reasonably in setting the fees for its market data offerings,
particularly given that the market participants that will pay such fees
often will be the same market participants from whom ISE must attract
order flow. These market participants include broker-dealers that
control the handling of a large volume of customer and proprietary
order flow. Given the portability of order flow from one exchange to
another, any exchange that sought to charge unreasonably high market
data fees would risk alienating many of the same customers on whose
orders it depends for competitive survival. ISE currently competes with
eight options exchanges for order flow.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Commission has previously made a finding that the
options industry is subject to significant competitive forces. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59949 (May 20, 2009), 74 FR
25593 (May 28, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-97) (order approving ISE's
proposal to establish fees for a real-time depth of market
offering).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE is constrained in pricing Top Quote and Spread Feed by the
availability to market participants of alternatives to purchasing these
products. ISE must consider the extent to which market participants
would choose one or more alternatives instead of purchasing the
Exchange's data. For example, although Top Quote is separate from the
core data feed made available by OPRA, all the information available in
Top Quote is included in the core data feed. The core OPRA data is
widely distributed and relatively

inexpensive, thus constraining ISE's ability to price Top Quote. In
this respect, the OPRA data feed, which includes the Exchange's
transaction information, is a significant alternative to the Exchange's
product. Further, other options exchanges have produced their own
products and thus are sources of potential competition for both Top
Quote and Spread Feed. As noted above, NASDAQ, Phlx and CBOE all offer
market data products that compete with either Top Quote and Spread Feed
or both.
    For the reasons cited above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees for Top Quote and Spread Feed are equitable, fair,
reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Exchange further
believes that the continued availability of Top Quote and Spread Feed
data feeds enhances transparency, fosters competition among orders and
markets, and enables buyers and sellers to obtain better prices. In
addition, the Exchange believes that no substantial countervailing
basis exists to support a finding that the proposed terms and fees for
these products fail to meet the requirements of the Act.

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

    ISE 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. Notwithstanding its
determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
NetCoaltion court found that the Commission had not, in that case,
compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the
market for the data at issue in the case was competitive.
    For the reasons discussed above, ISE believes that the Dodd-Frank
Act amendments to Section 19 materially alter the scope of the
Commission's review of future market data filings, by creating a
presumption that all fees may take effect immediately, without prior
analysis by the Commission of the competitive environment. Even in the
absence of this important statutory change, however, ISE believes that
a record may readily be established to demonstrate the competitive
nature of the market in question.
    As recently noted by a number of exchanges,\19\ there is intense
competition between trading platforms that provide transaction
execution and routing services and proprietary data products.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary
in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution
service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic
example of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether and on
which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the
platform where the order can be posted, including the execution fees,
data quality and price and distribution of its data products. Without
the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to a posted order on
a particular platform, the posting of the order would accomplish
little. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot exist.
Data products are valuable to many end users only insofar as they
provide information that end users expect will assist them or their
customers in making trading decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63084 (October 13,
2010), 75 FR 64379 (October 19, 2010) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise an
Optional Depth Data Enterprise License Fee for Broker-Dealer
Distribution of Depth-of-Book Data) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-125); and 62887
(September 10, 2010), 75 FR 57092 (September 17, 2010) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Market Data Feeds) (SR-PHLX-2010-121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will
direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues
from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution
costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
    Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decrease, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable. Thus, a super-competitive
increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the
potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one disputes that
competition for order flow is `fierce.' '' \20\ However, the existence
of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price
sensitivity on the part of broker-dealers with order flow, since they
may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost
trading venues. A broker-dealer that shifted its order flow from one
platform to another in response to order execution price differentials
would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce
its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly,
if a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect
the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected
broker-dealers will assess whether they can lower their trading costs
by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the
more expensive data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NetCoalition, at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For

example, some platform may choose to pay rebates to attract orders,
charge relatively low prices for market information (or provide
information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices for
accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of
paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including numerous self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to
attract internalized transaction reports. Competitive markets for order
flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline
for the inputs of proprietary data products. The large number of SROs,
TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are
currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline
for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently
permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do
or have announced plans to do so, including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE Amex,
NYSEArca, and BATS.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless. The fact that
proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-pass SROs is
significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with
SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products, as BATS
and Arca did before registering as exchanges by publishing proprietary
book data on the Internet. Second, because a single order or
transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO
proprietary product, or both, the data available in proprietary
products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and
transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. Market data vendors
provide another form of price discipline for proprietary data products
because they control the primary means of access to end users. Vendors
impose price restraints based upon their business models. For example,
vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters that assess a surcharge on data
they sell may refuse to offer proprietary products that end users will
not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google,
impose a discipline by providing only data that will enable them to
attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue.
Retail broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their
customers proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates
sufficient commission revenue. Although the business models may differ,
these vendors' pricing discipline is the same: they can simply refuse
to purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide
sufficient value. NASDAQ and other producers of proprietary data
products must understand and respond to these varying business models
and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data products
successfully.
    Competition among platforms has driven ISE continually to improve
its platform data offerings and to cater to customers' data needs. For
example, ISE has developed and maintained multiple delivery mechanisms
that enable customers to receive data in the form and manner they
prefer and at the lowest cost to them. ISE offers front end
applications such as its PrecISE Trade application which helps
customers utilize data. ISE offers data via multiple extranet
providers, thereby helping to reduce network and total cost for its
data products. ISE also offers an enterprise license option to help
reduce the administrative burden and costs to firms that purchase
market data. Despite these enhancements and a dramatic increase in
message traffic, ISE's fees for market data have, for the most part,
remained flat.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \22\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2011-50 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-ISE-2011-50. 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 such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the ISE. 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-ISE-2011-50 and should be submitted by August 26, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19856 Filed 8-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


May 9, 2013
EPA meeting with members of the Chemical Users Coalition (CUC) (Attendees list attached).
CUC made a presentation on a number of issues.  See attached presentation.  Part of the presentation was on the article exemption (see slide 7 of the presentation).  This discussion on the article exemption was in part general and in part in reference to several proposed SNURs .  Mark Greenwood of CUC and Paul Malichky of PPG stated that risk should be a consideration in whether or not to lift the article exemption for these SNURs and for SNURs in general.
Jeff Morris, EPA asked if there should be a specific risk consideration any time the article exemption was lifted for a SNUR.   Mr.  Mahlichky said yes.
Jason Leuck of Lockheed Martin said that they don't have the knowledge on what is in articles.  They have over 30,000 products that they use.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett of EPA asked whether the companies go back to their suppliers and request that the article not include a particular chemical.
Charle Ingebretson of Boeing stated that many at EPA had the impression based on what Walmart has done that every company can tell its suppiers not to include a particular chemical in a product but that is not the case.
Summary prepared by Maria Doa, EPA.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14579-14585]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05619]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0013]

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 40 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 April 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0013 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 Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

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 40 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
statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Schylor M. Altenhofen

    Mr. Altenhofen, 22, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Altenhofen understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Altenhofen meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Iowa.

Don R. Anderson, III

    Mr. Anderson, 48, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Anderson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Anderson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffer's license from Indiana.

Thomas A. Barnes

    Mr. Barnes, 56, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Barnes understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Barnes meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from Michigan.

Charles L. Bryant

    Mr. Bryant, 62, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2014 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. Bryant understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bryant meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Edward Cannon, Jr.

    Mr. Cannon, 55, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Cannon understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cannon meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arizona.

Alvin L. Carpenter

    Mr. Carpenter, 62, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Carpenter understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carpenter meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana.

Richard D'Ambrosia

    Mr. D'Ambrosia, 62, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2014 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. D'Ambrosia understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. D'Ambrosia meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Jefferey F. Deane

    Mr. Deane, 58, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Deane
understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Deane meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from
Massachusetts.

Keith M. Dickerson

    Mr. Dickerson, 59, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Dickerson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dickerson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Wisconsin.

Carl A. Federighi

    Mr. Federighi, 54, has had ITDM since 1984. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Federighi understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Federighi meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from California.

Bradley J. Frazier

    Mr. Frazier, 56, has had ITDM since 1983. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2014 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. Frazier understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Frazier meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Illinois.

Maximo E. Gaytan

    Mr. Gaytan, 60, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Gaytan understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gaytan meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable
proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Colorado.

Carl R. Gentry

    Mr. Gentry, 53, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2014 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. Gentry understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gentry meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

Benjamin D. Hirsch

    Mr. Hirsch, 25, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Hirsch understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hirsch meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Nebraska.

Robert M. Hutchison

    Mr. Hutchison, 57, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2014 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. Hutchison understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hutchison meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Gerald S. Johnson

    Mr. Johnson, 64, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Johnson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johnson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Florida.

Michael E. Jorissen

    Mr. Jorissen, 60, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Jorissen understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jorissen meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota.

Craig A. Keese, Jr.

    Mr. Keese, 49, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Keese understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Keese meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Robert E. Kilheffer, Jr.

    Mr. Kilheffer, 62, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Kilheffer understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kilheffer meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Amos L. Lapp

    Mr. Lapp, 51, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2013 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. Lapp understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lapp meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.

Edward J. Lulay

    Mr. Lulay, 59, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Lulay understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lulay meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.

Archard W. McQuade, Jr.

    Mr. McQuade, 28, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. McQuade understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McQuade meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from
Maryland.

Donald S. Middleton

    Mr. Middleton, 49, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Middleton understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Middleton meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.

Alva D. Moffatt

    Mr. Moffatt, 35, has had ITDM since 1983. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Moffatt understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Moffatt meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Washington.

John M. Muske

    Mr. Muske, 60, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Muske understands diabetes
management and monitoring,

has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive
a CMV safely. Mr. Muske meets the requirements of the vision standard
at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an
operator's license from Minnesota.

Joseph S. Myers

    Mr. Myers, 71, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Myers understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Myers meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida.

Stephen R. Newlin

    Mr. Newlin, 42, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Newlin understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Newlin meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from Illinois.

Antonio Pepiciello

    Mr. Pepiciello, 59, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Pepiciello understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pepiciello meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.

David R. Petitt

    Mr. Petitt, 62, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Petitt understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Petitt meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

James K. Popp

    Mr. Popp, 48, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2013 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. Popp understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Popp meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Dustin P. Russell

    Mr. Russell, 27, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Russell understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Russell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.

Gilbert L. Sanchez

    Mr. Sanchez, 66, has had ITDM since 1973. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Sanchez understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sanchez meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.

Sean L. Shidell

    Mr. Shidell, 44, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Shidell understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Shidell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.

Randall L. Shultz

    Mr. Shultz, 56, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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.
Shultz understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable
control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
safely. Mr. Shultz meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and
certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.

Patrick J. Smiley

    Mr. Smiley, 56, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Smiley understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smiley meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from Pennsylvania.

Kenneth R. Soult

    Mr. Soult, 52, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Soult understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Soult meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from Ohio.

Chad B. Spidell

    Mr. Spidell, 29, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2014 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. Spidell understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Spidell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Cameron M. Sprinkle

    Mr. Sprinkle, 56, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Sprinkle understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sprinkle meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.

Douglas E. Stewart

    Mr. Stewart, 49, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Stewart understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stewart meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi.

Thomas L. Williams

    Mr. Williams, 49, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 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. Williams understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Williams meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

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.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket number FMCSA-2014-0013 and click
the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
FMCSA-2014-0013 and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to the
proposed rulemaking.

    Issued on: March 7, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-05619 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 25)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6095]
[DOCID:fr08fe10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0960; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-29]

Revocation of Class E Airspace; Hinesville, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the effective date of a final
rule that was published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2009,
Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-29.

DATES: Effective Date: 0900 UTC, February 11, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Docket No. FAA-2009-0960, Airspace Docket No. 09-
ASO-29, published on November 25, 2009 (74 FR 61507), revokes Class E
airspace at Liberty County Airport, Hinesville, GA. A typographical
error was made in the effective date. It should read February 11, 2010,
not February 22, 2010. This action corrects that error.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, on page
61508, column 1, line 1, the DATES section is corrected to read:
Effective Date: 0900 UTC, February 11, 2010.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 26, 2010.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-2520 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 109 (Friday, June 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 34617]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10721-033]

Big Creek Lodge & Outfitters Inc.; Idaho Aviation Foundation;
Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On April 28, 2020, J Curtis Earl Idaho Aviation Foundation Inc.,
dba Idaho Aviation Foundation (transferee) filed an application for an
after-the-fact transfer of license of the Big Creek Hydroelectric
Project No. 10721. The project is located on McCorkle Creek, in Valley
County, Idaho, and within the Payette National Forest.
    The applicant seeks Commission approval to transfer the license for
the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project from Big Creek Lodge & Outfitters
Inc. (transferor) to the transferee. The Big Creek Lodge tragically
burned to the ground in October 2008 and Idaho Aviation Foundation
purchased the assets of Big Creek Lodge & Outfitters Inc. including the
hydropower project.
    Applicant's Contacts: Vic Jaro, Idaho Aviation Foundation, Board
Member, 1297 Quail Hollow, Buhl, ID 83316, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Nadine Burak, Secretary/
Treasurer, P.O. Box 2016, Eagle, ID 83616.
    FERC Contact: Anumzziatta Purchiaroni,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-10721-033.

    Dated: June 1, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12233 Filed 6-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38197-38198]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15135]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0926; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-24]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Port Townsend, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Jefferson County
International Airport, Port Townsend, WA, to accommodate aircraft using
a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard
instrument approach procedures at Jefferson County International
Airport. This improves the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, August 22, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 29, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace
at Port Townsend, WA (78 FR 25005). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 9.3-mile radius of Jefferson County
International Airport, with a segment extending from the radius of the
airport to 10.1 miles west of the airport, and from 1,200 feet above
the surface within stated geographic coordinates of the airport, to
accommodate IFR aircraft executing new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedures. This action is necessary for the safety and
management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and
air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, does not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This
rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle
VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is
charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace
necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it
establishes controlled airspace at Jefferson County International
Airport, Port Townsend, WA.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM WA E5 Port Townsend, WA [New]

Jefferson County International Airport, WA
    (Lat. 48[deg]03'14'' N., long. 122[deg]48'38'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.3-mile radius of the Jefferson County International
Airport and within 2.5 miles each side of the 284[deg] bearing of
the Jefferson County International Airport extending from the 9.3-
mile radius to 10.1 miles west of the airport; that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area
bounded by lat. 48[deg]24'00'' N., long. 123[deg]18'00'' W.; to lat.
48[deg]23'00'' N., long. 122[deg]35'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]52'00''
N., long. 122[deg]33'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]53'00'' N., long.
123[deg]00'00'' W.; to lat. 48[deg]05'00'' N., long. 123[deg]17'00''
W.; lat. 48[deg]10'00'' N., long. 123[deg]23'00'' W., thence to the
point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 17, 2013.
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-15135 Filed 6-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 36101-36102]
[DOCID:fr24jn10-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee;
Cancellation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The meeting of the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory
Committee scheduled for June 28, 2010, is cancelled. This meeting was
announced in the Federal Register of May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26264). The
meeting was to discuss new drug application (NDA) 22-340, voclosporin
10-milligram capsules, by Lux Biosciences Inc. This meeting has been
cancelled to allow time for the resolution of several outstanding
issues. The agency intends to continue evaluating NDA 22-340 and, as
needed, may schedule an advisory committee meeting in the future.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvette Waples, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA
Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in
the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information
Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.

    Dated: June 18, 2010.
Thinh Nguyen,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-15352 Filed 6-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S