Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices 26791 

38See supra note 26. 

39See supra note 3. 

40 17 CFR 242.201. 

41 17 CFR 242.600 et seq. 

42See supra note 33. 

43For example, in 2004, the Commission adopted 

Rule 202T, which provided for the temporary 

suspension of the short sale uptick rule in certain 

securities so that the Commission could study 

trading behavior in the absence of a price test. See 

Exchange Act Release No. 50103 (July 28, 2004), 69 

FR 48008 (Aug. 6, 2004). In the view of Division 

Staff, Boehmer, Jones, and Zhang provide evidence 

suggesting that trading behavior may not have 

completely adjusted to the Regulation SHO Pilot. 

See Boehmer, Jones, and Zhang, ‘‘Unshackling Short 

Sellers: The Repeal of the Uptick Rule’’ (2008), 

available at http://www.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/ 

faculty/research/pubfiles/3231/ 

UptickRepealDec11.pdf. 

44Several foreign jurisdictions have short sale 

marking requirements in place including Australia 

(Australian Securities and Investment Commission, 

Regulatory Guide, RG 196.12 (April 2010)), Canada 

(Universal Market Integrity Rules, Rule 3.2), Hong 

Kong (Hong Kong Exchange Rules, Eleventh 

Schedule, Rule 5), and Japan (Japan Financial 

Services Agency, ‘‘FSA Extends Temporary 

Measures Regarding Restrictions on Short Selling 

and Purchases of Own Stocks by Listed Companies’’ 

(Jan. 21, 2011) (effective until Apr. 30, 2011)). 

interested market participants? How 

would the Consolidated Tape marks 

affect the behavior of short sellers and 

other investors? Would Consolidated 

Tape marks help or hinder long-term 

investors in making ‘‘efficient 

investments?’’ 38 Would market 

commentators and others use 

Consolidated Tape marks to help the 

public better understand markets? 

Could such marks help to better detect, 

deter, or prevent identified short selling 

abuses? Alternatively, could such marks 

themselves present opportunities for 

alleged unfair or otherwise abusive 

market practices, such as bear raids or 

short squeezes? Would real time 

Consolidated Tape marks lead to 

copycat trading? How would 

Consolidated Tape marks affect investor 

confidence? 

Q17. Please discuss the feasibility, 

benefits, and costs related to the ‘‘short 

sale,’’ ‘‘market maker short,’’ and ‘‘buy-tocover’’ marks specifically, and the 

effects of any choices that would be 

made when defining such terms. Would 

there be a trade-off between defining the 

trades that would be subject to these 

marks for maximum utility and 

accuracy to investors, and minimizing 

implementation costs by building on 

existing definitions and order marking 

infrastructure? 39 If so, how should the 

tension between these goals be best 

resolved? Would there be any other 

potential issues associated with the 

accuracy or clarity of Consolidated Tape 

marks? Would the Consolidated Tape 

marks present possibilities for 

misinterpretation of the data that could 

impact any benefits and costs? 

Q18. How would any additions to 

Consolidated Tape marks affect 

liquidity, volatility, price efficiency, 

competition, and capital formation? To 

what extent, if any, would such data 

deter short selling activity not 

associated with abusive market 

practices, but that enhances market 

quality, for example, by revealing 

trading strategies? What are the 

consequences of such deterrence? 

Would any additions to Consolidated 

Tape marks have consequences 

(including benefits or costs) for equityrelated securities markets, such as 

options or other derivative markets, 

convertible bond or other debt markets? 

If so, please explain. What would the 

feasibility, benefits, and costs be if this 

real time reporting information were to 

be made public on a delayed basis? 

What length of delay might best balance 

any benefits and costs? 

Q19. What would be the direct, 

quantifiable costs of adding the 

additional fields to the Consolidated 

Tape to support new marks? Please 

differentiate implementation costs from 

ongoing costs and include opportunity 

costs. How feasible would it be for 

brokers, exchanges, and others to 

modify order management systems, or 

other systems, for these marks? What 

would be the potential technological 

challenges faced in implementing these 

marks? Would the Consolidated Tape 

bear significant implementation or 

ongoing costs? For example, would 

capacity requirements be significantly 

higher? Would vendors and others who 

receive feeds from the Consolidated 

Tape bear significant implementation or 

ongoing costs? Responses based on the 

costs of implementing Regulation SHO 

Rule 201,40 Regulation NMS,41 and 

Form SH 42 are particularly requested. 

Q20. What would be the benefits and 

costs (including the direct, quantifiable 

costs) of conducting a pilot for the 

Consolidated Tape marking? Would a 

pilot for Consolidated Tape marking be 

feasible? Would the direct, quantifiable 

costs of implementing and maintaining 

a pilot be any less, or more, than those 

of implementing and maintaining 

Consolidated Tape marking on all listed 

issuers? Would market participants be 

likely to behave differently during a 

pilot, for example by hesitating to 

develop new trading strategies? 43

Q21. What would be the benefits and 

costs of the voluntary component of the 

pilot? What types of issuers would 

likely volunteer to participate in a pilot? 

How would this self-selection affect the 

usefulness of any data derived from a 

pilot? Are there other consequences 

from a voluntary pilot? To maximize the 

utility of any pilot, should the pilot be 

designed to limit participation in a way 

that facilitates comparisons of trading in 

pilot companies and trading in nonpilot companies? If participation should 

be limited, how should the Commission 

determine which volunteers to include 

or exclude from the pilot? 

Q22. How should experiences with 

transaction marking regimes in foreign 

jurisdictions 44 inform analysis of the 

feasibility, benefits, and costs? Are there 

any analyses of transaction marking 

regimes that are relevant to the 

Division’s study? 

Q23. To what extent would 

Consolidated Tape marks be a substitute 

or compliment to real time short 

position reporting? How would the 

benefits and costs of any Consolidated 

Tape marks be impacted if real time 

position reporting existed and vice 

versa? 

Dated: May 3, 2011. 

By the Commission. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11188 Filed 5–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 7108] 

Advisory Committee for the Study of 

Eastern Europe and the Independent 

States of the Former Soviet Union; 

Notice of Committee Renewal 

Renewal of Advisory Committee. The 

Department of State has renewed the 

Charter of the Advisory Committee for 

the Study of Eastern Europe and the 

Independent States of the Former Soviet 

Union. This advisory committee makes 

recommendations to the Secretary of 

State on funding for applications 

submitted for the Research and Training 

Program on Eastern Europe and the 

Independent States of the Former Soviet 

Union (Title VIII). These applications 

are submitted in response to an annual 

open competition among U.S. national 

organizations with interest and 

expertise administering research and 

training programs in the Russian, 

Eurasian, and Central and East 

European fields. The program seeks to 

build and sustain U.S. expertise on 

these regions through support for 

advanced graduate training, language 

training, and postdoctoral research. 

The committee includes 

representatives of the Secretaries of 

Defense and Education, the Librarian of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

26792 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices 

Congress, and the Presidents of the 

American Association for the 

Advancement of Slavic Studies and the 

Association of American Universities. 

The Assistant Secretary for Intelligence 

and Research chairs the advisory 

committee for the Secretary of State. 

The committee meets at least once 

annually to recommend grant policies 

and recipients. 

For further information, please call 

Jon Crocitto, U.S. Department of State, 

(202) 736–4661. 

Dated: May 2, 2011. 

Susan H. Nelson, 

Executive Director, Advisory Committee for 

Study of Eastern Europe and Eurasia (the 

Independent States of the Former Soviet 

Union). 

[FR Doc. 2011–11243 Filed 5–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–32–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA–2011–0058] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Applications; Diabetes Mellitus 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its 

decision to exempt eighteen individuals 

from its rule prohibiting persons with 

insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) 

from operating commercial motor 

vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. 

The exemptions will enable these 

individuals to operate CMVs in 

interstate commerce. 

DATES: The exemptions are effective 

May 9, 2011. The exemptions expire on 

May 9, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical 

Programs, (202) 366–4001, 

fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, Room 

W64–224, Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

You may see all the comments online 

through the Federal Document 

Management System (FDMS) at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and/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. 

Privacy Act: Anyone may search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of DOT’s 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, or 

other entity). 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), or you 

may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/ 

2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf. 

Background 

On March 29, 2011, FMCSA 

published a notice of receipt of Federal 

diabetes exemption applications from 

eighteen individuals and requested 

comments from the public (76 FR 

17476). The public comment period 

closed on April 28, 2011 and no 

comments were received. 

FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility 

of the eighteen applicants and 

determined that granting the 

exemptions to these individuals would 

achieve a level of safety equivalent to, 

or greater than, the level that would be 

achieved by complying with the current 

regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). 

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving 

Experience of the Applicants 

The Agency established the current 

standard for diabetes in 1970 because 

several risk studies indicated that 

drivers with diabetes had a higher rate 

of crash involvement than the general 

population. The diabetes rule provides 

that ‘‘A person is physically qualified to 

drive a commercial motor vehicle if that 

person has no established medical 

history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes 

mellitus currently requiring insulin for 

control’’ (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)). 

FMCSA established its diabetes 

exemption program, based on the 

Agency’s July 2000 study entitled ‘‘A 

Report to Congress on the Feasibility of 

a Program to Qualify Individuals with 

Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to 

Operate in Interstate Commerce as 

Directed by the Transportation Act for 

the 21st Century.’’ The report concluded 

that a safe and practicable protocol to 

allow some drivers with ITDM to 

operate CMVs is feasible. 

The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441) 

Federal Register notice in conjunction 

with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 

67777) Federal Register notice provides 

the current protocol for allowing such 

drivers to operate CMVs in interstate 

commerce. 

These eighteen applicants have had 

ITDM over a range of 1 to 21 years. 

These applicants report no severe 

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss 

of consciousness or seizure, requiring 

the assistance of another person, or 

resulting in impaired cognitive function 

that occurred without warning 

symptoms, in the past 12 months and no 

recurrent (2 or more) severe 

hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 

years. In each case, an endocrinologist 

verified that the driver has 

demonstrated a willingness to properly 

monitor and manage his/her diabetes 

mellitus, received education related to 

diabetes management, and is on a stable 

insulin regimen. These drivers report no 

other disqualifying conditions, 

including diabetes-related 

complications. Each meets the vision 

standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). 

The qualifications and medical 

condition of each applicant were stated 

and discussed in detail in the March 29, 

2011, Federal Register notice and they 

will not be repeated in this notice. 

Discussion of Comment 

FMCSA did not receive any 

comments in this proceeding. 

Basis for Exemption Determination 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, 

FMCSA may grant an exemption from 

the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to 

achieve an equivalent or greater level of 

safety than would be achieved without 

the exemption. The exemption allows 

the applicants to operate CMVs in 

interstate commerce. 

To evaluate the effect of these 

exemptions on safety, FMCSA 

considered medical reports about the 

applicants’ ITDM and vision, and 

reviewed the treating endocrinologists’ 

medical opinion related to the ability of 

the driver to safely operate a CMV while 

using insulin. 

Consequently, FMCSA finds that in 

each case exempting these applicants 

from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level 

of safety equal to that existing without 

the exemption. 

Conditions and Requirements 

The terms and conditions of the 

exemption will be provided to the 

applicants in the exemption document 

and they include the following: (1) That 

each individual submit a quarterly 

monitoring checklist completed by the 

treating endocrinologist as well as an 

annual checklist with a comprehensive 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES