[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 20990-20991]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

April 15, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER03-9-017; ER06-1313-005; ER98-2157-018.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc., Kansas Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc et al submits Second Substitute
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 1A et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 6.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100415-0001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-758-018.
    Applicants: Inland Empire Energy Center, L.L.C.
    Description: Addendum to Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of
Inland Empire Energy Center, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100414-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1232-004; ER07-964-003; ER98-1150-012.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company, UniSource Energy
Development Company, UNS Electric, Inc.
    Description: Notification of Non-Material Change in Status of
Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., UniSource Energy
Development Company.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100414-5126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-853-001.
    Applicants: Dynamic PL, LLC.
    Description: Dynamic PL, LLC submits Petition for Acceptance of
Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authorization, together with Rate
Schedule 1 etc.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100414-0221.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1052-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Electric and Gas Company.
    Description: Public Service Electric and Gas Company submits
executed first revised transmission facilities agreement between it and
Atlantic City Electric Company, submitting Original Service Agreement
1877 under the FERC Electric tariff of PJM.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100414-0222.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1053-000.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.
    Description: Connecticut Light and Power Company submits
Interconnection Agreement between CL&P and Algonquin, designated as
Original Service Agreement 1A-NU-15.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100414-0223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1054-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits First Revised Sheet 44, a
Revised Attachment E-1 to rate Schedule FERC 317, a cost-based
agreement for wholesale power sales service from generating assets
likely to participate etc.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100414-0224.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1055-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits an updated Exhibit 2 First Revised
Rate Schedule 302, the Amended and Restated Facilities Rental and
Wheeling Agreement, etc.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100415-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1056-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Fourth Revised Service Agreement
66, a Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement, etc.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100415-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 5, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or

protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In
reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or
protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served
on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9265 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 70354-70356]
[DOCID:fr11de07-80]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56898; File Nos. SR-Amex-2007-124; SR-BSE-2007-50; SR-
CBOE-2007-144; SR-ISE-2007-108; SR-NYSEArca-2007-116; SR-Phlx-2007-88]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC:
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed
Rule Change, as Amended, Relating to Linkage Order; Boston Stock
Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated;
International Securities Exchange, LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.: Notice of Filing and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Linkage
Orders

December 5, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 28, 2007, November 28, 2007, November 27, 2007, November
13, 2007, December 4, 2007, and November 27, 2007, the American Stock
Exchange LLC (``Amex''), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE''), the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''); the
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), the NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'')
(each, an ``Exchange'' and, collectively, the ``Exchanges''),
respectively, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule changes as described in Items I and
II below. On December 4, 2007, Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to its
proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule changes from interested persons
and is approving the proposed rule changes on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Changes

    The Exchanges propose to amend their respective rules pertaining to
the Intermarket Options Linkage (``Linkage'') to conform such rules to
Joint Amendment No. 25 \3\ of the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and
Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (``Linkage Plan'').\4\ The text
of the proposed rule changes are available at the Exchanges' Web
sites,\5\ the Exchanges' principal offices, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56893 (December 4,
2007).
    \4\ On July 28, 2000, the Commission approved a national market
system plan for the purpose of creating and operating an intermarket
options market linkage (``Linkage'') proposed by Amex, CBOE, and
ISE. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43086 (July 28, 2000),
65 FR 48023 (August 4, 2000). Subsequently, Phlx, Pacific Exchange,
Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Arca, Inc.), and BSE joined the Linkage Plan. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 43573 (November 16, 2000), 65
FR 70851 (November 28, 2000); 43574 (November 16, 2000), 65 FR 70850
(November 28, 2000); and 49198 (February 5, 2004), 69 FR 7029
(February 12, 2004).
    \5\ See http://www.amex.com, http://www.bostonstock.com, http://www.cboe.com, http://www.iseoptions.com, http://www.nyse.com, and

http://www.phlx.com.

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

II. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Changes

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchanges propose to reduce certain ``turn-around'' times in
the Linkage to 3 seconds. Specifically, if a member \6\ of an Exchange
does not receive a response to its Linkage Order \7\ seconds, that
member would be able to reject any response purporting to be an
execution received thereafter. The member would also be able to trade
through the Exchange that failed to respond within 3 seconds after
receiving that order and, if the Exchange that sent the Linkage Order
cancels such response, the member would be required to cancel any
purported trade resulting from that order. The Exchanges state that, as
they have become more automated, experience with Linkage indicates that
reducing the turn-around time to 3 seconds is expected to facilitate
speedy executions of orders while not adversely affecting the ability
of members to make markets on their Exchanges. The Exchanges submitted
the proposed rule changes in conjunction with Joint Amendment No. 25 to
the Linkage Plan.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``member,'' as used herein, includes NYSE Arca OTP
Holders and OTP Firms and Boston Options Exchange (``BOX'') Options
Participants. See NYSE Arca Rules 1.1(q) and 1.1(r) and Chapter 1,
Sec. 1(a)(40) of BOX Rules, respectively.
    \7\ See Section 2(16) of the Linkage Plan. For the purposes of
these proposed rule changes only, references to ``Linkage Orders''
herein pertain to Principal Acting as Agent (``P/A'') Order and
Principal Orders. See Section 2(16)(a) and (b) of the Linkage Plan,
respectively, for definitions of ``P/A Order'' and ``Principal
Order.''
    \8\ Joint Amendment No. 25 to the Linkage Plan became summarily
effective for a period not to exceed 120 days on December 4, 2007.
See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchanges believe the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to
national securities exchanges and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the Exchanges believe the
proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ that the rules of an exchange be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchanges believe that the proposed rule changes would impose
no burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Changes Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchanges have neither solicited nor received comments on these
proposals.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
changes are 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 Numbers SR-Amex-2007-124; SR-BSE-2007-50; SR-CBOE-2007-144; SR-
ISE-2007-108; SR-NYSEArca-2007-116; SR-Phlx-2007-88 in the subject
line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Numbers SR-Amex-2007-124; SR-BSE-
2007-50; SR-CBOE-2007-144; SR-ISE-2007-108; SR-NYSEArca-2007-116; SR-
Phlx-2007-88. These file numbers should be included on the subject line
if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090 on
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 Exchanges. 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 Numbers SR-Amex-2007-124; SR-BSE-2007-50; SR-CBOE-2007-144; SR-
ISE-2007-108; SR-NYSEArca-2007-116; SR-Phlx-2007-88 and should be
submitted on or before January 2, 2008.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Changes

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder, applicable to national securities
exchanges.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposals
are consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\
in that they are designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that
reducing the time required by an Exchange to respond to a Linkage Order
and reducing the amount of time a member sending a Linkage Order must
wait before trading through a nonresponsive Exchange should facilitate
the more timely execution of orders across the Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
has considered their impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act \13\ for approving the proposal prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of the notice of the filing thereof in
the Federal Register. Granting accelerated approval would facilitate
the implementation of these changes in conjunction with the
implementation of Joint Amendment No. 25 to the Linkage Plan.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ See supra note 8.

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

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2007-124), as amended, and
proposed rule changes (SR-BSE-2007-50; SR-CBOE-2007-144; SR-ISE-2007-
108; SR-NYSEArca-2007-116; SR-Phlx-2007-88) are hereby approved on an
accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23923 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48052-48057]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17249]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89459; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2020-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 to Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Schedule of Wireless Connectivity Fees and Charges to Add Wireless
Connectivity Services

August 3, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On February 12, 2020, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act

of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
a proposed rule change (SR-NYSEAMER-2020-10) to amend the schedule of
Wireless Connectivity Fees and Charges (``Wireless Fee Schedule'') to
add wireless connectivity services that transport the market data of
certain affiliates of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission published the proposed rule change for public
comment in the Federal Register on February 25, 2020.\3\ The Commission
received several comments on the proposed rule change, and a response
from the Exchange.\4\ On April 1, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\5\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\6\ On May 18, 2020, the Commission instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.\7\ The Commission received additional comments in response
to the Order Instituting Proceedings.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88238 (February 19,
2020), 85 FR 10776 (February 25, 2020) (SR-NYSEAMER-2020-10)
(``Wireless II Notice''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 88237 (February 19, 2020), 85 FR 10752 (February 25, 2020) (SR-
NYSE-2020-11); 88239 (February 19, 2020), 85 FR 10786 (February 25,
2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-15); 88240 (February 19, 2020), 85 FR 10795
(February 25, 2020) (SR-NYSECHX-2020-05); and 88241 (February 19,
2020), 85 FR 10738 (February 25, 2020) (SR-NYSENAT-2020-08).
    \4\ Comments received on the Wireless II Notice and the
Exchange's response are available on the Commission's website at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyseamer-2020-10/srnyseamer202010.htm.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88540 (April 1,
2020), 85 FR 19562 (April 7, 2020). The Commission designated May
25, 2020, as the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule changes.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88901 (May 18,
2020), 85 FR 31273 (May 22, 2020) in which the Commission instituted
proceedings (``Order Instituting Proceedings'' or ``OIP'').
    \8\ Comments received on the Wireless II Notice following the
OIP also are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyseamer-2020-10/srnyseamer202010.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 27, 2020, the Exchange filed Partial Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change in response to certain comments on the proposed
rule change. Partial Amendment No. 1 is described in Item II below,
which has been substantially prepared by the Exchange.\9\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on Partial
Amendment No. 1 from interested persons.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission has reformatted the Exchange's presentation
of the footnotes.
    \10\ Partial Amendment No. 1 is also available on the
Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyseamer-2020-10/srnyseamer202010.htm. The Commission also refers interested
persons to Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88169 (February 11,
2020), 85 FR 8946 (February 18, 2020) (SR-NYSEAMER-2020-05) (wherein
the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to establish the Wireless
Fee Schedule listing available wireless bandwidth connections
between the Mahwah, New Jersey data center and other data centers
(``Wireless I'') and concurrently proposes to partially amend
Wireless I). Partial Amendment No. 1 to Wireless I is available on
the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyseamer-2020-05/srnyseamer202005.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Amendment

    NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the ``Exchange'') hereby
submits this Partial Amendment No. 1 to the above-referenced filing
(``Filing'') in connection with the proposed rule change to add
wireless connectivity that transport the market data of certain
affiliates of the Exchange to the schedule of Wireless Connectivity
Fees and Charges (the ``Wireless Fee Schedule''). With this Partial
Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposes a new rule to place restrictions
on the use of a pole on the grounds of the Mahwah, New Jersey data
center that is used for wireless connectivity services that transport
the market data of certain affiliates of the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes the following amendments to the Filing:
    1. The Exchange proposes to amend the first paragraph in Item 1(a)
on page 3 of the Filing:
    The wireless connectivity services do not transport market data of
the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the first
paragraph of Item 1(a) on page 3 of the Filing to reflect that fact and
to add text to describe the proposed rule change. Specifically, it
proposes to add ``(a)'' before ``wireless connectivity services'';
delete ``the Exchange and''; add ``of the Exchange'' after ``certain
affiliates''; and add new text at the end of the paragraph to describe
the proposed rule change, as follows (new text italicized, deletions in
[brackets]):

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the ``Exchange'') proposes
to add (a) wireless connectivity services that transport the market
data of [the Exchange and] certain affiliates of the Exchange to the
schedule of Wireless Connectivity Fees and Charges (the ``Wireless
Fee Schedule''); and (b) a new rule to place restrictions on the use
of a pole on the grounds of the Mahwah, New Jersey data center that
is used for such wireless connectivity services.
    2. The Exchange proposes to amend the carryover paragraph on pages
3 and 4 of the Filing (second full paragraph on page 24 of the Exhibit
1):
    The Exchange proposes to add amend the carryover paragraph on pages
3 and 4 of the Filing (second full paragraph on page 24 of the Exhibit
1) to add ``(a)'' before ``wireless connectivity services'' and add new
text to describe the proposed rule change, as follows (new text
italicized, deletion in [brackets]):

    The Exchange proposes to add (a) wireless connectivity services
that transport market data of three Exchange affiliates, New York
Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and
NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'') to the Wireless Fee
Schedule[.],3/4 and (b) a new rule to place restrictions
on the use of a pole on the grounds of the Mahwah, New Jersey data
center that is used for such wireless connectivity services. A
market participant is not able to use the wireless connectivity
services to connect to Exchange market data.

    3. The Exchange proposes to add a new section titled ``Proposed New
Rule'' and accompanying footnotes after the first full paragraph on
page 14 of the Filing (carryover paragraph on pages 39 and 40 of the
Exhibit 1):
    The Exchange proposes a new rule to place restrictions on the use
of a pole on the grounds of the Mahwah, New Jersey data center that is
used for wireless connectivity services. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to add a new section titled ``Proposed New Rule'' and
accompanying footnotes (subsequent footnotes would be renumbered in a
conforming change) after the first full paragraph on page 14 of the
Filing (carryover paragraph on pages 39 and 40 of the Exhibit 1), after
the end of the section titled ``The Proposed Service and Fees,'' as
follows (all text is new):

Proposed New Rule

    Since 2016, IDS has had the use of a pole on the grounds of the
Mahwah data center.27/28 The data center pole is part of
the network utilized for the Wireless Market Data Connections to the
Carteret and Secaucus Third Party Data Centers.28/29 At
the data center pole, the wireless connection to the Third Party
Data Centers converts to a fiber connection, and the fiber
connection travels from the data center pole into the Mahwah data
center.29/30 The equipment on the data center pole
belongs to IDS and Anova Technologies, LLC (``Anova''), the non-ICE
entity that owns the wireless network used for the Wireless Market
Data Connections to Secaucus and Carteret.30/31
    Other third parties that offer wireless services utilize
commercial poles located outside the grounds of the Mahwah, New
Jersey data center for their wireless networks. A third party's
wireless connections to the Third Party Data Center convert to fiber
connections at the commercial pole, and the fiber connects the
commercial pole to the Mahwah data center.
    Several such third parties have objected to the use of the data
center pole for the Wireless Market Data Connections. They argue
that IDS has an advantage over its competitors because third parties
are not allowed access to the data center pole,31/32 and
the data center pole is closer to the Mahwah data center than any
commercial pole.32/33 At least one third party has raised
the additional concern that the Wireless Market Data Connections may
benefit from ``less obvious and more discreet types of latency
advantages'' due to infrastructure inside the Mahwah data center,
noting that ``some connections may have a longer fiber route than
others within a data center or may have to go through various
equipment or meet me rooms that an affiliate or preferred provider
of an exchange do not.'' 33/34
    The Exchange is proposing a new Rule 3.14E (Data Center Pole
Latency Restrictions--Connectivity to Production of Exchange Market
Data) that would require that the length of the connection from the
data center pole to the point inside the Mahwah data center where
Exchange market data is produced be no less than the length of the
connection from the closest commercial pole to the same point. By
requiring that the compared connections both extend to where
Exchange market data is produced, the proposed rule would take
distances within the Mahwah data center into account.

    The proposed rule would include the following definitions:

     ``Commercial Pole'' would mean a pole (a) on which one
or more third parties locate wireless equipment used to offer
wireless connectivity to other third parties, and (b) from which a
fiber connection extends from third party equipment on the pole to
the Data Center.
     ``Data Center'' would mean the Mahwah, New Jersey data
center where the Exchange's matching engine is located, or its
successor.
     ``Data Center Pole'' would mean a pole that (a) holds
wireless equipment, (b) is located within the grounds of the Data
Center, and (c) cannot be used by third parties other than third
parties with which the Exchange or an ICE Affiliate has an agreement
to provide services in the name of the Exchange or an ICE Affiliate.
     ``ICE Affiliate'' would mean Intercontinental Exchange,
Inc. (``ICE'') and any entity that directly or indirectly, through
one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under
common control with ICE, where ``control'' means that one entity
possesses, directly or indirectly, voting control of the other
entity either through ownership of capital stock or other equity
securities or through majority representation on the board of
directors or other management body of such entity.

    The proposed rule would require that:

the length of the connection between (a) the base of the Data Center
Pole and (b) the point inside the Data Center where Exchange market
data is produced shall be no less than
the length of the connection between (x) the base of the closest
Commercial Pole and (y) the point inside the Data Center where
Exchange market data is produced.
27/28 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76750
(December 23, 3015), 80 FR 81648 (December 30, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-
2015-85) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to the Co-location
Services Offered by the Exchange (the Offering of a Wireless
Connection to Allow Users to Receive Market Data Feeds from Third
Party Markets) and to Reflect Changes to the NYSE MKT Equities Price
List and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule Related to These
Services).
28/29 The Wireless Market Data Connections with Markham,
Canada do not use equipment on the data center pole.
29/30 The wireless network similarly converts to a fiber
connection for its connection into the Third Party Data Centers.
30/31 Equipment for services Anova offers under its own
name is not allowed on the data center pole.
31/32 IDS does not sell rights to third parties to
operate wireless equipment on the data center pole due to space
limitations, security concerns, and the interference that would
arise between equipment placed too closely together.
32/33 See letter from Gregory Babyak, Global Head of
Regulatory Affairs, Bloomberg L.P., to Ms. Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
dated June 12, 2020; letter from Stephen John Berger, Managing
Director, Global Head of Government and Regulatory Policy, Citadel
Securities, to Ms. Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated
June 12, 2020; letter from Jim Considine, Chief Financial Officer,
McKay Brothers LLC (``McKay Brothers''), to Ms. Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission, dated June 12, 2020 (``McKay Letter''); and
letter from Thomas M. Merritt, Deputy General Counsel, Virtu
Financial, Inc. to Ms. Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
dated March 10, 2020.
33/34 McKay Letter, supra note 32/33, at 9.

    4. The Exchange proposes to add new text after the carryover
paragraph on pages 15 and 16 of the Filing (carryover paragraph on
pages 41 and 42 of the Exhibit 1):
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Filing to include additional
analysis on the competitive environment for wireless connections.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add a paragraph and accompanying
footnotes (subsequent footnotes would be renumbered in a conforming
change) after the carryover paragraph on pages 15 and 16 of the Filing
(carryover paragraph on pages 41 and 42 of the Exhibit 1), as follows
(all text is new):

    Such competitors can offer wireless connectivity to Selected
Market Data or other Exchange market data in the Third Party Data
Centers by obtaining the market data at the Mahwah data center and
sending it over their wireless network to the Third Party Data
Centers.37/38 The Exchange believes that its competitors'
wireless connections provide connectivity at the same or similar
speed as the Wireless Market Data Connections, and at the same or
similar cost. Indeed, the McKay Letter acknowledges that McKay
Brothers has the fastest wireless network.38/39
37/38 A market participant in any of the Third Party Data
Centers or the Mahwah data center also may create a proprietary
wireless market data connection, connect through another market
participant, or utilize fiber connections offered by the Exchange,
ICE Affiliates, and other service providers and third party
telecommunications providers.
38/39 McKay Letter, supra note 32/33, at 4.

    5. The Exchange proposes to amend the Statutory Basis section of
the Filing after the second full paragraph on page 18 of the Filing
(third full paragraph on page 45 of the Exhibit 1):
    The Exchange proposes to include information in the Filing
regarding why it believes the proposed new rule is reasonable. The
Exchange proposes to amend the Statutory Basis section of the Filing to
add new paragraphs and accompanying footnotes (subsequent footnotes
would be renumbered in a conforming change) after the second full
paragraph on page 18 of the Filing (third full paragraph on page 45 of
the Exhibit 1), at the end of the section titled ``The Proposed Change
is Reasonable,'' as follows (all text is new):

    The Exchange believes that the proposed new Rule 3.14E would be
reasonable as, pursuant to the rule, the networks for the Wireless
Market Data Connections, and future wireless connections that use a
Data Center Pole, would ``operat[e] in the same manner as
competitors do today without a latency subsidy or other advantage
provided by the Exchanges. . . .'' 43/44 Accordingly, the
proposed new rule would promote just and equitable principles of
trade and, in general, protect investors and the public

interest by ensuring that the subscribers to services using the IDS
wireless network do not benefit from any physical proximity ``on the
segment [of the network] closest to the Exchanges' data center that
no competitor can replicate.'' 44/45 By ending both of
the compared connections at the point inside the Data Center where
Exchange market data is produced, the proposed rule would take
distances within the Mahwah data center into account.
45/46 The proposed new rule would not apply differently
to distinct types or sizes of market participants. The Exchange
would be required to ensure that the length of the connection
between (a) the base of the Data Center Pole and (b) the point
inside the Data Center where Exchange market data is produced, would
be no less than the length of the connection between (x) the base of
the closest Commercial Pole and (y) the point inside the Data Center
where Exchange market data is produced.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of
``Commercial Pole'' is reasonable and would promote just and
equitable principles of trade because it would encompass any pole on
which a third party locates its wireless equipment in order to offer
wireless connectivity to customers. The Exchange believes that such
third parties are the direct competitors for the Wireless Market
Data Connections, as they also offer wireless connections to
customers. If a third party used a pole for a proprietary wireless
network and that pole does not have one or more third parties'
wireless equipment used to offer wireless connectivity to other
third parties, that pole would not fall within the scope of the
definition of Commercial Pole.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Data
Center'' is reasonable and would promote just and equitable
principles of trade because it would capture any data center to
which the Exchange locates its matching engine.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Data
Center Pole'' is reasonable and would promote just and equitable
principles of trade because it would encompass not just the current
pole, but also any additional or successor pole on the grounds of
the Data Center, so long as such pole could not be used by third
parties other than third parties with which the Exchange or an ICE
Affiliate had an agreement to provide services in the name of the
Exchange or an ICE Affiliate, such as Anova.
    The Exchange believes that the definition of ``ICE Affiliate''
is reasonable and would promote just and equitable principles of
trade because the same definition is used in Rule 497-Equities
(Affiliation between Exchange and a Member
Organization),46/47 and so using it would add
transparency, clarity and internal consistency to Exchange rules.

43/44 McKay Letter, supra note 32/33, at 7.
44/45 Id, at note 33.
45/46 Each of the Affiliate SROs is filing for a rule
change that is substantially similar to the proposed Exchange rule.
Assuming such filings are approved by the Commission, to the extent
that the market data of an Affiliate SRO is produced separately from
where the Exchange market data is produced, the wireless connection
to that Affiliate SRO's market data would be captured by that
Affiliate SRO's rule.
46/47 The definition of ICE has been added to the text.

    6. The Exchange proposes to amend the Statutory Basis section of
the Filing after the fifth full paragraph on page 19 of the Filing
(carryover paragraph on pages 47 and 48 of the Exhibit 1):
    The Exchange proposes to include information in the Filing
regarding why it believes the proposed new rule is not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange proposes to amend the Statutory Basis
section of the Filing to add new paragraphs and accompanying footnotes
(subsequent footnotes would be renumbered in a conforming change) after
the fifth full paragraph on page 19 of the Filing (carryover paragraph
on pages 47 and 48 of the Exhibit 1), immediately prior to the last
paragraph of the section titled ``The Proposed Change is Not Unfairly
Discriminatory,'' as follows (all text is new):

    The Exchange believes that the proposed new Rule 3.14E would not
be unfairly discriminatory, as pursuant to the rule, the networks
for the Wireless Market Data Connections, and future wireless
connections that use the Data Center Pole, would ``operat[e] in the
same manner as competitors do today without a latency subsidy or
other advantage provided by the Exchanges. . . .'' 47/48
Accordingly, the proposed new rule would ensure that the IDS
wireless network does not benefit from physical proximity ``on the
segment [of the network] closest to the Exchanges' data center that
no competitor can replicate.'' 48/49 By ending both of
the compared connections at the point inside the Data Center where
Exchange market data is produced, the proposed rule would take
distances within the Mahwah data center into account.
    The proposed new rule would not apply differently to distinct
types or sizes of market participants. The Exchange would be
required to ensure that the length of the connection between (a) the
base of the Data Center Pole and (b) the point inside the Data
Center where Exchange market data is produced, would be no less than
the length of the connection between (x) the base of the closest
Commercial Pole and (y) the point inside the Data Center where
Exchange market data is produced.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of
``Commercial Pole'' would not be unfairly discriminatory because it
would encompass any pole on which a third party locates its wireless
equipment in order to offer wireless connectivity to customers. The
Exchange believes that such third parties are the direct competitors
for the Wireless Market Data Connections, as they also offer
wireless connections to customers. If a third party used a pole for
a proprietary wireless network and that pole does not have one or
more third parties' wireless equipment used to offer wireless
connectivity to other third parties, that pole would not fall within
the scope of the definition of Commercial Pole.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Data
Center'' would not be unfairly discriminatory because it would
capture any data center to which the Exchange locates its matching
engine.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Data
Center Pole'' would not be unfairly discriminatory because it would
encompass not just the current pole, but also any additional or
successor pole on the grounds of the Data Center, so long as such
pole could not be used by third parties other than third parties
with which the Exchange or an ICE Affiliate had an agreement to
provide services in the name of the Exchange or an ICE Affiliate,
such as Anova.
    The Exchange believes that the definition of ``ICE Affiliate''
would not be unfairly discriminatory because the same definition is
used in Rule 497-Equities 49/50 and so using it would add
transparency, clarity and internal consistency to Exchange rules.

47/48 McKay Letter, supra note 32/33, at 7.
48/49 Id., at note 33.
49/50 The definition of ICE has been added to the text.

    7. The Exchange proposes to amend the section of the Filing titled
``Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition''
in the following two ways:
    The Exchange proposes to include information in the Filing
regarding why it believes the proposed new rule would impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'').\11\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the
section of the Filing titled ``Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement
on Burden on Competition'' in the following two ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, to set the new text apart from the previous discussion
regarding the burden on competition, the Exchange proposes to add the
heading ``Wireless Market Data Connectivity'' immediately before the
first full paragraph under the heading on page 20 of the Filing (page
48 of the Exhibit 1). The new heading would apply to the current text
of the Filing.
    Second, after the third full paragraph on page 22 of the Filing
(first full paragraph on page 51 of the Exhibit 1), the Exchange
proposes to add the heading ``Proposed New Rule'' and new paragraphs
and accompanying footnotes (subsequent footnotes would be renumbered in
a conforming change), as follows (all text is new):

Proposed New Rule

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed new rule would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the
Act.52/53

    With the exception of Anova, third parties do not have access to
the data center pole. Under the proposed rule, the Exchange would
always be obligated to ensure that the length of the connection
between (a) the base of the Data Center Pole and (b) the point
inside the Data Center where Exchange market data is produced, would
be no less than the length of the connection between (x) the base of
the closest Commercial Pole and (y) the point inside the Data Center
where Exchange market data is produced.
    IDS, not the Exchange, provides the Wireless Market Data
Connections to market participants, and so it would be IDS that
would have to slow its connection down as required by the rule.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the only burden on
competition of the proposed change would be on IDS.
    Nonetheless, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate because the proposed change would ensure that the IDS
wireless network did not benefit from physical proximity ``on the
segment [of the network] closest to the Exchanges' data center that
no competitor can replicate.'' 53/54 The networks for the
Wireless Market Data Connections, and future wireless connections
that use the Data Center Pole, would ``operat[e] in the same manner
as competitors do today without a latency subsidy or other advantage
provided by the Exchanges. . . .'' 54/55
    The proposed rule would not otherwise put a burden on
competition. As noted above, access to the data center pole is not
required for third parties to establish wireless networks that can
compete with the Wireless Market Data Connections to the Carteret
and Secaucus Third Party Data Centers, as evidenced by the existing
wireless connections offered by third party
competitors.55/56 Such competitors can offer wireless
connectivity to Selected Market Data or other Exchange market data
in the Third Party Data Centers by obtaining the market data at the
Mahwah data center and sending it over their wireless network to the
Third Party Data Centers.56/57 Indeed, the Exchange
believes that its competitors' wireless connections provide
connectivity at the same or similar speed as the Wireless Market
Data Connections, and at the same or similar cost. The McKay Letter
acknowledges that McKay Brothers has the fastest wireless
network.57/58
    The Exchange notes that proximity to a data center is not the
only determinant of a wireless network's latency. Rather, the
latency of a wireless network depends on several factors. Variables
include the wireless equipment utilized; the route of, and number of
towers or buildings in, the network; and the fiber equipment used at
either end of the connection. Moreover, latency is not the only
consideration that a customer may have in selecting a wireless
network to connect to for market data. Other considerations may
include the amount of network uptime; the equipment that the network
uses; the cost of the connection; and the applicable contractual
provisions.
    The proposed change does not affect competition among national
securities exchanges or among members of the Exchange, but rather
between IDS and its commercial competitors.

52/53 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
53/54 McKay Letter, supra note 32/33, at note 33.
54/55 Id., at 7.
55/56 Based on the information available to it, the
Exchange believes that a market participant in the Carteret or
Secaucus Third Party Data Center may purchase a wireless connection
to the NYSE and NYSE Arca Integrated Feed data feeds from at least
two other providers of wireless connectivity.
56/57 A market participant in any of the Third Party Data
Centers or the Mahwah data center also may create a proprietary
wireless market data connection, connect through another market
participant, or utilize fiber connections offered by the Exchange,
ICE Affiliates, and other service providers and third party
telecommunications providers.
57/58 Id., at 4.

    8. The Exchange proposes to add a list under ``Exhibit 5--Text of
the Proposed Rule Change'' on page 22 of the Filing:
    The Exchange proposes to add a new Exhibit 5B. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to add a list under ``Exhibit 5--Text of Proposed
Rule Change'' on page 22 of the Filing, as follows (new text
italicized):

Exhibit 5--Text of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Text of the Proposed Schedule of Wireless Connectivity Fees and
Charges
B. Text of the Proposed Rule

    9. The Exchange proposes to add new text to the first full
paragraph of Section I on page 23 of the Exhibit 1:
    The Exchange proposes to add new text to the first full paragraph
of Section I on page 23 of the Exhibit 1, as follows (new text
italicized):

    The Exchange proposes to add wireless connectivity services that
transport the market data certain affiliates of the Exchange to the
schedule of Wireless Connectivity Fees and Charge (the ``Wireless
Fee Schedule'') and add a new rule to place restrictions on the use
of a pole on the grounds of the Mahwah, New Jersey data center that
is used for such wireless connectivity services. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

    10. The Exchange proposes to amend ``Exhibit 5'' to ``Exhibit 5A''
on page 54 of the Exhibit 5:
    To reflect the addition of a new Exhibit 5B, the Exchange proposes
to add ``A'' to ``EXHIBIT 5'' on page 54 of the Exhibit 5, to make it
``EXHIBIT 5A''.
* * * * *
    All other representations in the Filing remain as stated therein
and no other changes are being made.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change As Modified By
Partial Amendment No. 1 and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 180 days after the date of publication of the initial Notice
of Filing in the Federal Register or within such longer period up to an
additional 60 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such
longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will issue an order approving or disapproving such
proposed rule change, as amended.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended by Partial Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-10. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the

filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEAMER-2020-10, and should be submitted on or before August 28, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17249 Filed 8-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4895-4896]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02652]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0059]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 32
individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) prohibiting persons with a clinical
diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a
loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, 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.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0059, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and
choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    FMCSA received applications from 32 individuals who requested an
exemption from the FMCSRs prohibiting persons with a clinical diagnosis
of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a CMV from operating
CMVs in interstate commerce.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8).

III. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for five years if it finds such an exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such an exemption. FMCSA grants exemptions
from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum
duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on the eligibility criteria, the terms and conditions for Federal
exemptions, and an individualized assessment of each applicant's
medical information provided by the applicant.

IV. Conclusion

    The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the
eligibility criteria or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal
exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety
that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). Therefore, the 32 applicants in this notice have been
denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8).
    Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of
final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision
letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitutes final
action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent
denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically
publishing names and reasons for denial.
    The following 31 applicants do not meet the minimum time
requirement for being seizure-free, either on or off of anti-seizure
medication:

Van D. Allen (VT)
Lance Bacile (LA)
Joseph W. Benton (LA)
William C. Berkley (NJ)
Joseph A. Burckhalter (NC)
Francisco Burila (ME)
Victor Cox (NC)
Larry A. Giese (WI)
John Giraldo-Palau (NJ)
Martin Glipsie (OH)
David Gunzenhauser (NJ)
Cynthia Harris (IN)
Christopher Jurich (PA)
Mark L. Kaiser (CO)
David Kerr (NM)
Ashley Liebler (CA)
Dan Liners (MN)
Alexandria R. Lockhart (PA)

Luis Lozado (NJ)
Victor Martinez (CA)
Matthew Nelson (NV)
Lance Payne (NV)
Bryian Peterson (OR)
Robert Polsifer Jr. (CA)
Monico Ramirez (IL)
Greg Reninger (IL)
Daniel Ricker (OR)
Devyn Roberts (KY)
Trenton A. Romig (PA)
Dewitt Stafford (WI)
Joshua Trainum (PA)

    The following applicant does not meet the minimum time requirement
for a stable anti-seizure medication dosage: Scott McElmury (MN)

    Issued on: February 8, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-02652 Filed 2-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P