[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12319-12320]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06243]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0058]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt three individuals from
the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have
``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or
any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or
any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions enable these
individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on March 15, 2019. The exemptions
expire on March 15, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], 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-2018-0058, 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

    On February 6, 2019, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from three individuals requesting an exemption from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and
requested comments from the public (84 FR 2319). The public comment
period ended on March 8, 2019, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting 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)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of

consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
for up to five years from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) 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. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.
    In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, FMCSA
considered the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (MEP). The January 15, 2013, Federal Register notice (78 FR 3069)
provides the current MEP recommendations which is the criteria the
Agency uses to grant seizure exemptions.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical
information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s) and
medical information about the applicant's seizure history, the length
of time that has elapsed since the individual's last seizure, the
stability of each individual's treatment regimen and the duration of
time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition, the Agency
reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of seizure
and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS) for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in
the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL
holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State
Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). A summary of each applicant's seizure
history was discussed in the February 6, 2019 Federal Register notice
(84 FR 2319) and will not be repeated in this notice.
    These three applicants have been seizure-free over a range of 13
years while taking anti-seizure medication and maintained a stable
medication treatment regimen for the last two years. In each case, the
applicant's treating physician verified his or her seizure history and
supports the ability to drive commercially.
    The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not
pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that
existing without the exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment
during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit
annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each
driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the three exemption applications,
FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure
disorder prohibition, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), subject to the requirements
cited above: Christopher M. Dowling (IN); Robert Drake (AZ); Daniel H.
Threatt (NC).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be
valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The
person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was
maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: March 22, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-06243 Filed 3-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10193-10195]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0042]

Canadian Standards Association: Request for Renewal of
Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the Canadian Standards
Association's (CSA) application containing a request for renewal of
recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) under
29 CFR 1910.7.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before March 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    1. Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    2. Facsimile: If submissions, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, commenters may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    3. Regular or express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit a copy of comments and any attachments to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2006-0042, Technical Data Center, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TDY number: (877) 889-
5627). Note that security procedures may result in significant delays
in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures concerning delivery of materials by express delivery, hand
delivery, or messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA
Docket Office are 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    4. Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2006-0042). OSHA will place all
submissions, including any personal information provided, in the public
docket without revision, and these submissions will be available online
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    5. Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the

docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket
submissions.
    6. Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before March 11, 2014 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David W. Johnson, Director, Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL
to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA
maintains an informational Web site for each NRTL that details its
scope of recognition available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for renewal of
recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA
conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7,
App. II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a renewal
request to OSHA, not less than nine months or no more than one year,
before the expiration date of its current recognition. A renewal
request includes a request for renewal and any additional information
the NRTL wishes to submit to demonstrate its continued compliance with
the terms of its recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If OSHA has not
conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL's headquarters and key
sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will schedule the necessary
on-site assessments prior to the expiration date of the NRTL's
recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and, as necessary,
the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA announces its
preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the Federal Register
and solicit comments from the public. OSHA then publishes a final
Federal Register notice responding to any comments and renewing the
NRTL's recognition for a period of five years, or denying the renewal
of recognition.
    CSA initially received OSHA recognition as an NRTL on December 24,
1992 (57 FR 61452). CSA's most recent renewal was on July 3, 2001, for
a five-year period ending on July 3, 2006. CSA submitted a timely
request for renewal, dated October 3, 2005 (see Ex. OSHA-2006-0042-
0002), and retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in
this renewal process. The current addresses of CSA facilities
recognized by OSHA and included as part of the renewal request are:

1. CSA Toronto, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada M9W
1R3;
2. CSA International Montreal, 865 Ellingham Street, Pointe-Claire,
Quebec, Canada H9R 5E8;
3. CSA International Irvine, 2805 Barranca Parkway, Irvine, California
92606;
4. CSA International Edmonton, 1707-94th Street, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada T6N 1E6;
5. CSA International Vancouver, 13799 Commerce Parkway, Richmond,
British Columbia, Canada V6V 2N9; and
    6. CSA International Cleveland, 8501 East Pleasant Valley Road,
Cleveland, Ohio, 44131.

II. Notice of Preliminary Findings

    OSHA is providing notice that CSA is applying for renewal of its
current recognition as an NRTL. This renewal covers CSA's existing NRTL
scope of recognition. OSHA evaluated CSA's application for renewal and
preliminarily determined that CSA can continue to meet the requirements
prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. Accordingly, OSHA is
making a determination that it does not need to conduct an on-site
review of CSA's facilities based on its evaluations of CSA's
application and all other available information. This information
includes OSHA's most recent audit of CSA's headquarters, CSA Toronto,
conducted on March 24-25, 2011, in which the auditors found some non-
conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. CSA addressed
these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements.
    OSHA staff also performed an audit of the CSA Montreal site on
March 21-22, 2011; of the CSA Edmonton site on September 23-24, 2009;
and of the CSA Vancouver site on August 21-22, 2013. The auditors found
some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. CSA has
addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL
requirements. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim
or temporary approval of the application.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether CSA meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of their recognition as an
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. OSHA must receive the
written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 30 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not
adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly
available information in CSA's application and other pertinent
documents (including exhibits), as well as all submitted comments,
contact the Docket Office, Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address; these
materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. OSHA-2006-0042.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will recommend whether to grant CSA's application for
renewal. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on
granting the application and, in making this decision, may undertake
other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will
publish a public notice of this final decision in the Federal Register.

III. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 19, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-03864 Filed 2-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21441-21443]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08320]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69294; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE MKT Rule
1000

April 4, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on April 2, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 phase out the functionality associated
with liquidity replenishment points (``LRPs'') to coincide with the
implementation of the Limit Up--Limit Down Plan (the ``Plan'') by
adding language to NYSE MKT Rule 1000--Equities that, beginning on
April 8, 2013, LRPs will no longer be in effect for Tier 1 NMS Stocks,
and on the earlier of August 1, 2013 or such date as Phase II of the
Limit Up--Limit Down Plan is implemented, LRPs will no longer be in
effect for all NMS Stocks. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to phase out the functionality associated
with LRPs to coincide with the implementation of the Plan by amending
NYSE MKT Rule 1000--Equities to provide that, beginning on April 8,
2013, LRPs will no longer be in effect for Tier 1 NMS Stocks, and
beginning on the earlier of, August 1, 2013 or such date as Phase II of
the Limit Up--Limit Down Plan is implemented, LRPs will no longer be in
effect for all NMS stocks.
    The LRP mechanism was approved in 2006 to address market volatility
on the New York Stock Exchange, and approved for use on the Exchange in
2008.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange uses LRPs, which are triggered by
rapid price movements over a short period of time, to moderate
volatility in a security by temporarily converting the electronic
market for the security into an auction market to afford new trading
interests the opportunity to add liquidity. The Exchange additionally
believes that LRPs were effective in moderating some of the impact from
the events of May 6, 2010, for NYSE MKT trading customers as evidenced
by the lack of erroneous trades on the Exchange. LRPs also served as
the basis for the Plan,\5\ as well as the implementation of the short
sale circuit breakers. Indeed, for many years, LRPs have been a key
selling point of the Exchange to both investors and listed companies
who, like the Exchange, believe that stable prices further the purposes
of protecting

investors against unnecessary price swings thereby enhancing investor
confidence in the U.S. securities markets. LRPs have delivered concrete
benefits to public investors in the many erroneous or aberrant trades
they have prevented, and have allowed the Exchange to communicate in an
orderly way with issuers during periods of market stress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22,
2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2004-05); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58265 (July 30, 2008), 73 FR 46075 (Aug. 7,
2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (``LULD Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, the Exchange proposes to phase out LRPs as a result
of the scheduled implementation of the Plan, which was adopted in
response to the market disruption of May 6, 2010. Specifically, in
addressing comments focused on the relationship between the Plan and
exchange-specific volatility mechanisms--such as the NYSE MKT's LRPs--
the Commission stated that it was ``aware of the potential for
unnecessary complexity that could result if the Plan were adopted, and
exchange-specific volatility mechanisms were retained'' and ``[t]o this
end, the Commission expects that upon implementation of the Plan, such
exchange-specific volatility mechanisms would be discontinued by the
respective exchanges.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. at n. 182 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Exchange understands the need for industry-wide
responses to address extraordinary volatility events such as the market
disruption that occurred on May 6, 2010, the Exchange does not agree
that such initiatives should come at the expense of existing investor
protection mechanisms, particularly without any impact analysis,
because such initiatives can have unintended consequences to the
detriment of investors and the marketplace as a whole. In light of the
fact that only potential concerns were noted and there is no evidence
of systemic problems that would be caused by simultaneously operating
the Plan and LRPs, the Exchange continues to believe that data could
have been collected during the Plan pilot period and would have served
as an excellent testing ground to determine if both the Limit Up--Limit
Down bands as well as the LRP bands could function effectively
together. The Exchange believes that only after such careful monitoring
could an informed determination be made that accurately assesses
whether the functionalities were redundant or conflicting so as to
warrant continuing with one or the other, or both. The Plan pilot
period could also have afforded the Commission and the Exchange the
ability to compile and analyze data that would contribute to the making
of an informed decision with respect to the merits of both programs.
    Indeed, there is nothing particularly complex about how LRPs would
have operated alongside the Plan. As the LRP bands are generally
narrower than the Limit Up--Limit Down bands, LRPs might have continued
to serve their current purpose of creating a temporary auction market
buffer to rapid and extraordinary price movements occurring in the
electronic market. They would have been triggered within Limit Up--
Limit Down bands, would have applied only to the Exchange, and trading
on away markets could have continued to occur because the NYSE MKT
quotation is not protected during an LRP. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that any incremental complexity the LRPs would have added to
the operation of the Plan would have been outweighed substantially by
their proven effectiveness in minimizing rapid price movements that are
driven by erroneous orders.
    Furthermore, the Exchange wishes to respectfully, but strenuously,
object not only to the substance of the Commission's decision to
effectively insist that the Exchange abandon LRPs, but also the policy
implications of the decision. From a policy perspective, the
Commission's required removal of LRPs would seem to embody an effort to
force markets ``into a single mold'' \7\ for purposes of addressing
extraordinary volatility, and to obstruct the development of
``subsystems within the national market system,'' objectives which are
inconsistent with the 1975 Act Amendments.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See H.R. Rep. No. 94-123, at 51 (1975) (emphasis added)
(``The objective is to enhance competition and to allow economic
force, interacting within a fair regulatory field, to arrive at
appropriate variations of practices and services. Neither the
markets themselves nor the broker-dealer participant in these
markets should be forced into a single mold. Market centers should
compete and evolve according to their own natural genius and all
actions to compel uniformity must be measured and justified as
necessary to accomplish the salient purposes of the Securities
Exchange Act, assure the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and
to provide price protection for the orders of investors.'').
    \8\ See S. Rep. No. 94-75 (1975). While there is no disputing
that Congress intended to grant broad and discretionary market
oversight powers to the Commission, it is also important to
recognize the intended limits of that discretion. The Senate
Committee Report sheds particular light on those limits with respect
to uniformity of structure: ``This is not to say that it is the goal
of the legislation to ignore or eliminate distinctions between
exchange markets and over-the-counter markets or other inherent
differences or variations in components of a national market system.
Some present distinctions may tend to disappear in a national market
system, but it is not the intention of the bill to force all markets
for all securities into a single mold. Therefore, in implementing
the bill's objectives, the SEC would have the power to classify
markets, firms, and securities in any manner it deems necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of
investors and to facilitate the development of subsystems within the
national market system.'' See id. at 7 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, the Exchange proposes to phase out \9\ the LRP
functionality for securities as they are covered by the Plan in
coordination with the Plan's Phase I and Phase II implementation
timelines.\10\ LRPs will remain in place for any securities not covered
by the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange would note that the suspension, rather than the
elimination thereof, of LRPs for the duration of the pilot period
would not be put before the Commission for consideration.
    \10\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68785
(January 31, 2013), 78 FR 8646 (February 6, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-
06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, the Exchange proposes to add rule language to NYSE MKT
Rule 1000--Equities that, beginning on April 8, 2013, LRPs will no
longer be in effect for Tier 1 NMS Stocks, and on the earlier of August
1, 2013 or such date as Phase II of the Limit Up--Limit Down Plan is
implemented, LRPs will no longer be in effect for all NMS Stocks. In
order to accommodate the phasing out process, prior to the
implementation of Phase II of the Plan, the Exchange will file a
separate rule proposal deleting the references to LRP functionality in
NYSE MKT Rules 60--Equities, 79A--Equities, 104--Equities, 128--
Equities, 501--Equities, 508--Equities, 512--Equities, and 1000--
Equities. The Exchange will apprise members and member organizations of
the dates of the discontinuation of the LRP functionality via an
Information Memorandum. The Exchange plans to revisit the merits of
discontinuing the LRP functionality after the initial Plan pilot period
has ended and may file to reincorporate the LRP functionality at that
time as well.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it is designed
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system. However, the Exchange is discontinuing the LRP
functionality and deleting corresponding rule references to implement
changes that the Commission has requested and expects

as reflected in the LULD Release. Moreover, the related Information
Memorandum to members and member organizations would provide advance
notice to NYSE MKT members and member organizations that the Exchange
would cease offering the LRP functionality in furtherance of the
Commission's expectations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose a burden on competition because the Exchange is discontinuing
the LRP functionality to fulfill the Commission's expectations. In this
respect, the Exchange notes that because Commission expects all
exchanges to discontinue their respective volatility mechanisms, there
should be no burden on competition because all exchanges as well as
their members and issuers would be similarly situated.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\16\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to designate an operative date of April 8, 2013. The
Commission believes that waiving the operative delay and designating
April 8, 2013 as the operative date of the proposed rule change is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because such waiver would allow the proposed rule change to be
operative on the initial date of Plan operations. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates an
operative date of April 8, 2013.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-33 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-NYSEMKT-2013-33. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-33 and should
be submitted on or before May 1, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08320 Filed 4-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2606-2608]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01393]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85039; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-111]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Equity 7, Section 118(a) of the Rules

February 1, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 26, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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 the Exchange's transaction fees at
Equity 7, Section 118(a) to: (i) Assess fees for the Midpoint Extended
Life Order; and (ii) offer new supplemental credits in all three tapes
for non-displayed orders that add liquidity, as described further
below.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on January 2, 2019.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
transaction fees at Equity 7, Section 118(a) to: (i) Assess fees for
the Midpoint Extended Life Order; and (ii) establish two new
supplemental credits in all three tapes for non-displayed midpoint
orders that provide liquidity, as described further below.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing changes on
December 21, 2018 (SR-NASDAQ-2018-110). On December 26, 2018, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Change
    The Exchange is proposing to assess a $0.0004 per share executed
fee for executions of Midpoint Extended Life Orders in securities
priced at $1 or more. Currently, the Exchange does not assess a fee for
executions of Midpoint Extended Life Orders. The proposed fee covers
Orders in securities of any of the three tapes. The Exchange believes
that the market in Midpoint Extended Life Orders has matured to the
point that it can support the proposed $0.0004 per share executed fee.
Second Change
    The Exchange is proposing to offer two new supplemental credits in
all three tapes for non-displayed midpoint orders that provide
liquidity if a member executes a requisite average daily volume of
shares through Midpoint Extended Life Orders. These are supplemental
credits because they will apply in addition to the credits otherwise
available to members that add non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to offer a member a $0.0001
supplemental credit per share executed for midpoint orders if the
member executes an average daily volume of at least 2.5 million up to,
but not including, 4 million shares through Midpoint Extended Life
Orders. Alternatively, the Exchange proposes to offer a member a
$0.0002 supplemental credit per share executed for midpoint orders if
the member executes an average daily volume of 4 million or more shares
through Midpoint Extended Life Orders. The purposes of the new credits
are to provide members with a greater incentive to utilize Midpoint
Extended Life Orders as well as to increase their provision of non-
displayed midpoint liquidity on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ 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, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission

highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \7\
(``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\8\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \8\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \9\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Change
    The proposed $0.0004 per share executed fee is reasonable because
the Exchange has considered the nature of the market in Midpoint
Extended Life Orders, the need to assess a fee to help cover the costs
of supporting trading on Nasdaq, and the Exchange's desire to continue
to promote use of Midpoint Extended Life Orders on the Exchange. Taking
these factors into consideration, the Exchange has determined that
$0.0004 per share executed is appropriate. The Exchange currently
assess a fee of $0.0007 per share executed for certain TFTY Orders.\11\
The Exchange also assesses $0.0007 per share executed for QCST and QDRK
orders, except for QCST orders that execute on Nasdaq BX for which
there is no charge or credit.\12\ Thus, the lower fee is similar to
existing fees for Orders that utilize the Exchange and may promote use
of Midpoint Extended Life Orders and consequently the quality of the
market in Midpoint Extended Life Orders. The Exchange also notes that a
competitor exchange assesses a fee of $0.0009 per share executed for
both adding and removing all non-displayed liquidity in securities
priced $1 or more.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 7018(a)(1)-(3) [sic].
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See Investors Exchange Fee Schedule, available at: https://iextrading.com/trading/fees/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed extensively in its proposal,\14\ the Exchange believes
that the Midpoint Extended Life Order is consistent with the Act
because it is emblematic of a core function of a national securities
exchange, namely matching buyers and sellers of securities on a
transparent and well-regulated market, and helping these buyers and
sellers come together to receive the best execution possible. The
Exchange achieves this by permitting Midpoint Extended Life Orders to
execute solely against other Midpoint Extended Life Orders at the
midpoint of the NBBO in return for providing market-improving behavior
in the form of a longer-lived midpoint order. Thus, the Exchange
believes that it is important for participants using Midpoint Extended
Life Orders to have a deep and liquid market. Applying a lower fee than
the $0.0030 per share executed that the Exchange assesses for removing
resting midpoint liquidity should provide incentive to market
participants to use Midpoint Extended Life Orders while also allowing
the Exchange to recoup some of the costs it incurs in offering the
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81311 (August 3,
2017), 82 FR 37248 (August 9, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-074).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are an equitable
allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
will apply the same fee to all similarly situated members. Moreover,
members not interested in using Midpoint Extended Life Orders will
continue to have the ability to enter midpoint Orders in the Nasdaq
System, which have both fees and credits associated with their
execution.\15\ The proposed $0.0004 per share executed fee is lower
than most other fees assessed for executions, which is reflective of
the beneficial nature of the type of Order. Any member may take
advantage of the lower fee by using the Order Type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Based on whether the member is removing or adding
liquidity. See Equity 7, Section 118(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Last, the Exchange is not assessing a charge for executions in
Midpoint Extended Life Orders in securities priced below $1 because
there are very few executions in such Orders relative to transactions
in Midpoint Extended Life Orders in securities priced at $1 or greater.
Allowing such transactions at no cost will help promote a deeper market
in Midpoint Extended Life Orders in securities priced below $1. Thus,
the Exchange believes that the no cost tier in Midpoint Extended Life
Orders in securities priced below $1 remains an equitable allocation
and is not unfairly discriminatory.
Second Change
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to offer new
supplemental credits to a member for non-displayed midpoint orders that
add liquidity to the Exchange if the member executes a requisite
average daily volume of shares through Midpoint Extended Life Orders.
If effective, the Exchange believes that the new supplemental credits
will improve market quality on the Exchange, including for Midpoint
Extended Life Orders. The Exchange believes that the new credit is an
equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange will apply the same fee to all similarly situated members.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposal to assess a modest fee of $0.0004
per share executed will not place any burden on

competition, but rather will help ensure continued growth in the use of
Midpoint Extended Life Orders by making such Orders attractive to
members that seek to execute at the midpoint with like-minded members,
while also allowing the Exchange to recoup some of the costs associated
with offering the Order Type. To the extent the proposal is not
successful in promoting liquidity in Midpoint Extended Life Orders, it
would have no meaningful impact on competition as few transactions in
Midpoint Extended Life Orders would occur.
    Likewise, the Exchange believes that the new proposed supplemental
credits will not place any burden on competition because the Exchange's
execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive
competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues.
Moreover, the addition of the proposed credits may encourage other
market venues to provide similar credits to improve their market
quality. In that sense, the Exchange believes that the new credits may
promote competition.
    In sum, if the proposal to assess the new fee tiers for executions
of Midpoint Extended Life Orders and to provide new supplemental
credits for members that execute Midpoint Extended Life Orders are
unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange
will not gain any market share and may lose market share. Accordingly,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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 should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-111 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-111. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-111 and should be submitted
on or before February 22, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2019-01393 Filed 2-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 38)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10157-10158]
[DOCID:fr26fe08-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 367

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27871]
RIN 2126-AB15

Fees for Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement;
Correction

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

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes a technical correction to the annual fees
and fee bracket structure for the Unified Carrier Registration
Agreement that were published in the Federal Register of August 24,
2007 (72 FR 48585). The fees and fee bracket structure are required
under the Uniform Carrier Registration Act of 2005, enacted as Subtitle
C of Title IV of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. This document corrects
the year in which the fees and fee bracket structure are effective.

DATES: Effective date: February 26, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Hartman, Regulatory Development
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office
hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This technical correction involves the fees for the Unified Carrier
Registration Agreement (UCR Agreement) established by 49 U.S.C. 14504a,
enacted by section 4305(b) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
(119 Stat. 1144, 1764 (2005)). Section 14504a states that the ``Unified
Carrier Registration Plan * * * mean[s] the organization * * *
responsible for developing, implementing, and administering the unified
carrier registration agreement'' (49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(9)). The UCR
Agreement developed by the Unified Carrier Registration Plan (UCR Plan)
is the ``interstate agreement governing the collection and distribution
of registration and financial responsibility information provided and
fees paid by motor carriers, motor private carriers, brokers, freight
forwarders and leasing companies * * * '' (49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(8)).
    The statute provides for a 15-member Board of Directors for the UCR
Plan and Agreement (Board) appointed by the Secretary of
Transportation. The establishment of the Board was announced in the
Federal Register on May 12, 2006 (71 FR 27777).
    Among its responsibilities, the Board was required to submit to the
Secretary of Transportation \1\ a recommendation for the initial annual
fees to be assessed motor carriers, motor private carriers, freight
forwarders, brokers and leasing companies under the UCR Agreement (49
U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7)(A)). The FMCSA then was directed to set the fees
within 90 days after receiving the Board's recommendation and after
notice and opportunity for public comment (49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7)(B)).
The FMCSA established fees and a fee bracket structure in a final rule
published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2007 (72 FR 48585).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Secretary's functions under section 14504a have been
delegated to the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. 49 CFR 1.73(a)(7), as amended, 71 FR 30833 (May 31,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    In the final rule of August 24, 2007 (72 FR 48585), the FMCSA
erroneously specified that the fees and fee bracket structure adopted
in that rule pertained only to the registration year 2007. Under the
statute, however, the fees set by FMCSA apply to each registration year
unless and until the Board recommends an adjustment in the annual fees
in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(E). Only after the UCR Board
and FMCSA follow the procedures specified in 49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7)(B)
and FMCSA approves a new set of fees and fee brackets would they become
effective.

Need for Correction

    This technical correction is required to allow the UCR Plan to
continue to collect the established fees in each registration year. The
FMCSA is correcting the section heading of 49 CFR 367.20 and the
caption of the fee table in Sec.  367.20 to specify that the section
establishes fees under the UCR Plan and the UCR Agreement for each
registration year.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Administrative Procedure Act

    The Administrative Procedure Act provides exceptions to its notice
and public comment procedures when an agency finds there is good cause
on the basis that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' (See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)). As stated
above, the amendment made by this final rule merely corrects an
inadvertent error. The FMCSA therefore finds good cause that notice and
public comment are unnecessary. Further, the Agency finds good cause
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the amendment effective upon
publication.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or within
the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and
procedures. The Office of Management and Budget did not review this
document. We expect the final rule will have minimal costs; therefore,
a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), FMCSA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities.
Because the rule only makes editorial corrections and places no new
requirements on the regulated industry, FMCSA certifies that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rulemaking will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532, et
seq.), that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $128.1
million or more in any 1 year.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action will meet applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation,

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. We determined that this rulemaking will not concern an
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately
affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

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

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The FMCSA analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FMCSA has determined
that this rulemaking will not have a substantial direct effect on
States, nor will it limit the policy-making discretion of the States.
Nothing in this document will preempt any State law or regulation.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that FMCSA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
are no new information collection requirements associated with this
final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The FMCSA analyzed this final rule for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and
determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1, issued
March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this action is categorically excluded
(CE) under Appendix 2, paragraph 6.h of the Order from environmental
documentation. In addition, the Agency believes that this action
includes no extraordinary circumstances that will have any effect on
the quality of the environment. Thus, the action does not require an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.
    The FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.), and
implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general
conformity requirement since it will have no effect on the environment.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that Executive Order because it will not be
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 367

    Commercial motor vehicle, Financial responsibility, Motor carriers,
Motor vehicle safety, Registration, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, part 367, as follows:

PART 367--STANDARDS FOR REGISTRATION WITH STATES

0
1. The authority citation for part 367 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 13301, 14504, 14504a; and 49 CFR 1.73.

0
2. Correct the section heading and the title of the table in Sec.
367.20 to read as follows:

Sec.  367.20  Fees under the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and
Agreement for Each Registration Year.

Fees Under the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement for Each
Registration Year

* * * * *

    Issued on: February 20, 2008.
John H. Hill,
 Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-3603 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Placeholder: Confidential business information

Individual company data from CAA section 114 request and trend assessment. Includes data from 2008 through 2013.

For more information please contact David Donaldson by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: April 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 23454-23455]
[DOCID:fr30ap08-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-151-000]

Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

April 23, 2008.
    Take notice that on April 14, 2008, Stingray Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (Stingray), 1100 Louisiana, Suite 3300, Houston, Texas 77002,
filed in Docket No. CP08-151-000, an application under section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) regulations for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity authorizing the abandonment of eight
compressor units at Stingray Compressor Stations 701 and 702.
    Stingray's proposal is more fully described as set forth in the
application that is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The instant filing may be also viewed on the Web at http://
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY, (202) 502-
8659.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to:
Cynthia A. Corcoran, Vice President--Regulatory Affairs, Stingray
Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 1100 Louisiana, Suite 3300, Houston, Texas
77002 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: May 14, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9435 Filed 4-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P