[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28681-28686]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11520]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69548; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Various Sections of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule

May 9, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on May 1, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule with
respect to the Customer \3\ Rebate Program in Section B, certain
pricing in Section II entitled ``Multiply Listed Options Fees,'' \4\
including Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') Rebates,\5\ and Section
IV, entitled ``Other Transaction Fees,'' PIXL \6\ Pricing and FLEX
Options \7\ pricing. The Exchange also proposes to eliminate references
to RUT and clarify the treatment of certain strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which
is not for the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14)).
    \4\ The pricing in Section II includes options overlying
equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed.
    \5\ A QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy or sell at least
1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified
contingent trade, as that term is defined in Rule 1080(o)(3),
coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of
contracts. The QCC Order must be executed at a price at or between
the National Best Bid and Offer and be rejected if a Customer order
is resting on the Exchange book at the same price. A QCC Order shall
only be submitted electronically from off the floor to the PHLX XL
II System. See Rule 1080(o). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64249 (April 7, 2011), 76 FR 20773 (April 13, 2011) (SR-
Phlx-2011-47) (a rule change to establish a QCC Order to facilitate
the execution of stock/option Qualified Contingent Trades (``QCTs'')
that satisfy the requirements of the trade through exemption in
connection with Rule 611(d) of the Regulation NMS). A Floor QCC
Order must: (i) Be for at least 1,000 contracts, (ii) meet the six
requirements of Rule 1080(o)(3) which are modeled on the QCT
Exemption, (iii) be executed at a price at or between the National
Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO''); and (iv) be rejected if a Customer
order is resting on the Exchange book at the same price. In order to
satisfy the 1,000-contract requirement, a Floor QCC Order must be
for 1,000 contracts and could not be, for example, two 500-contract
orders or two 500-contract legs. See Rule 1064(e). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64688 (June 16, 2011), 76 FR
36606 (June 22, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-56).
    \6\ PIXL is the Exchange's price improvement mechanism known as
Price Improvement XL or (PIXL\SM\). See Rule 1080(n).
    \7\ The term ``FLEX option'' means a FLEX option contract that
is traded subject to this Rule. Although FLEX options are generally
subject to the rules in this section, to the extent that the
provisions of this Rule are inconsistent with other applicable
Exchange rules, this Rule takes precedence with respect to FLEX
options. See Exchange Rule 1079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.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 Category A of
the Customer Rebate Program to offer increased rebate opportunities for
PIXL Orders greater than 999 contracts in Section II symbols. The
Exchange proposes to amend Section II to increase the maximum QCC
rebate that will be paid by the Exchange, adopt a new fee and rebate
for certain floor transactions, clarify the treatment of strategies and
eliminate RUT from the Pricing Schedule. Finally, the Exchange proposes
to amend its PIXL Pricing and relocate and adopt new FLEX Multiply
Listed Options pricing.
    Customer Rebate Program
    Currently, the Exchange has in place a four tier structure Customer
Rebate Program at Section B of the Pricing Schedule which pays Customer
rebates on four Categories (A, B, C and D) of transactions. The four
tier structure pays rebates based on percentage thresholds of national
customer multiply-listed options volume by month based on the same four
Categories (A, B, C and D) of transactions. Specifically, the Exchange
bases a market participant's qualification for a certain Rebate Tier on
the percentage of total national customer volume in multiply-listed
options which are transacted monthly on Phlx as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Percentage thresholds of
                                                national customer volume in
            Customer rebate tiers               multiply-listed  equity and       Category A         Category B         Category C         Category D
                                                   ETF  options classes
                                                         (Monthly)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1......................................  0.00%-0.75%...................              $0.00              $0.00              $0.00              $0.00
Tier 2......................................  Above 0.75%-1.60%.............               0.11               0.12               0.13               0.08
Tier 3......................................  Above 1.60%-2.60%.............               0.13               0.13               0.14               0.08
Tier 4......................................  Above 2.60%...................               0.15               0.15               0.15               0.09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Exchange totals Customer volume in Multiply Listed
Options (including Select Symbols) that are electronically-delivered
and executed, except volume associated with electronic QCC Orders, as
defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o) in the same manner.\8\ Members and
member organizations under common ownership \9\ may aggregate their
Customer volume for purposes of calculating the Customer Rebate Tiers
and receiving rebates. Category A rebates are paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot Options
and Customer Simple Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II.
Rebates are paid on PIXL Orders in Section II symbols that execute
against non-Initiating Order interest. Category B rebates are paid to
members executing electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in
Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II. Category
C rebates are paid to members executing electronically-delivered
Customer Complex Orders in Select Symbols in Section I. Category D
rebates are paid to members executing electronically-delivered Customer
Simple Orders in Select Symbols in Section I. Rebates are paid on PIXL
Orders in Section I symbols that execute against non-Initiating Order
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For clarity, the Exchange will calculate volume and pay
rebates based on a member organization's Phlx house account numbers.
    \9\ Common ownership means 75% common ownership or control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Category A of the Customer Rebate
Program to instead pay on PIXL Orders in Section II symbols that
execute against non-Initiating Order interest, except in the case of a
PIXL Order that is greater than 999 contracts. All PIXL Orders that are
greater than 999 contracts will be paid a rebate regardless of the
contra party to the transaction. The Exchange is not proposing any
additional amendments to the Customer Rebate Program.
Section II Amendments
    The Exchange proposes to remove references to FLEX Option pricing
in Section II of the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange will adopt new FLEX
Option pricing in Section IV of the Pricing Schedule, which will be
described in additional detail below.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt new pricing for Specialists \10\ and
Market Makers \11\ that are contra to a Customer Penny Pilot Options on
Exchange Traded-Fund (``ETFs'') \12\ on the Exchange's floor of $0.25
per contract in addition to the Floor Options Transaction Charges in
Section II of the Pricing Schedule.\13\ Additionally, the contra
Customer order to the Specialist and Market Maker transaction will be
entitled to a rebate of $0.25 per contract. The Exchange believes that
this new pricing will encourage trading in Penny Pilot Options on ETFs
on the Exchange's trading floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \11\ A Market Maker includes Registered Options Traders (Rule
1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also market makers.
    \12\ An ETF is an open-ended registered investment company under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 that has received certain
exemptive relief from the Commission to allow secondary market
trading in the ETF shares. ETFs are generally index-based products,
in that each ETF holds a portfolio of securities that is intended to
provide investment results that, before fees and expenses, generally
correspond to the price and yield performance of the underlying
benchmark index.
    \13\ Specialists and Market Makers are assessed a Floor Options
Transaction Charge of $0.25 per contract. See Section II of the
Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange is removing references the reference to
options on the Russell 2000[supreg] Index (the ``Full Value Russell
Index'' or ``RUT'') in Section II of the Pricing Schedule as the
Exchange delisted RUT as of April 24, 2013.
Section IV Amendments
PIXL
    The Exchange proposes to amend PIXL pricing at Section IV, Part A
of the Pricing Schedule. Currently, the Exchange assesses an Initiating
Order \14\ a $0.07 per contract or $0.05 per contract fee if the
Customer Rebate Program Threshold Volume, defined in Section B, is
greater than 100,000

contracts per day in a month. \15\ The Exchange proposes to amend the
PIXL pricing to state that an Initiating Order fee for a Firm that is
contra to a Customer PIXL Order will be reduced to $0.00 if a Customer
PIXL Order is greater than 999 contracts. The Exchange believes that
this amendment will encourage Firms to transact a greater number of
PIXL Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A member may electronically submit for execution an order
it represents as agent on behalf of a public customer, broker-
dealer, or any other entity (``PIXL Order'') against principal
interest or against any other order (except as provided in Rule
1080(n)(i)(E)) it represents as agent (``Initiating Order'')
provided it submits the PIXL order for electronic execution into the
PIXL Auction (``Auction'') pursuant to Rule 1080. See Exchange Rule
1080(n).
    \15\ Any member or member organization under Common Ownership
with another member or member organization that qualifies for a
Customer Rebate Tier discount in Section B receives the PIXL
Initiating Order discount as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLEX
    The Exchange also proposes to add a new Part B to Section IV
entitled ``FLEX Transaction Fees.'' As mentioned herein, FLEX Options
pricing is currently located in Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
Today, the Exchange assesses Customers no fee for transacting FLEX
Options. All other market participants, Professionals,\16\ Specialists,
Market Makers, Broker-Dealers \17\ and Firms,\18\ are assessed $0.10
per contract when transacting FLEX Options.\19\ Further, today the Firm
Floor Options Transaction Charges are waived for members executing
facilitation orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064 when such members
are trading in their own proprietary account (including FLEX and
Cabinet Options Transaction Charges).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The term ``professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \17\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \18\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at OCC.
    \19\ FLEX Option fees today are not in addition to Options
Transaction Charges.
    \20\ The Firm Floor Options Transaction Charges is waived for
the buy side of a transaction if the same member or its affiliates
under Common Ownership represents both sides of a Firm transaction
when such members are trading in their own proprietary account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new FLEX Multiply Listed Options
pricing in Section IV, Part B of the Pricing Schedule for Multiply
Listed Options. FLEX Transaction Customer Fees for Multiply Listed
Orders on the Exchange's trading floor \21\ will continue to be
assessed no fee for transacting FLEX Options. All other market
participants, Professionals, Specialists, Market Makers, Broker-Dealers
and Firms, will now be assessed an increased fee of $0.15 per contract
when transacting FLEX Options.\22\ The Exchange will continue to apply
the Monthly Firm Fee Cap,\23\ Monthly Market Maker Cap,\24\ and the
Options Surcharge in PHLX/KBW Bank Index (``BKX''), options on the one-
tenth value of the Nasdaq 100 Index traded under the symbol MNX
(``MNX'') and options on the Nasdaq 100 Index traded under the symbol
NDX (``NDX'') described in Section II \25\ will apply to this Section
IV, B. No other fees described in Section II will apply to this Section
IV, B. The Exchange will continue to waive FLEX transaction fees for a
Firm executing facilitation orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064 when
such members are trading in their own proprietary account. The pricing
in Section III, entitled ``Singly Listed Options'' will continue to
apply to FLEX Singly Listed Options, as is the case today.\26\ The
Exchange assesses Options Transaction Charges for Singly Listed Options
as follows: A Customer is assessed $0.35 per contract, a Specialist and
Market Maker is assessed $0.40 per contract and a Professional, Firm
and Broker-Dealer are assessed $0.60 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ FLEX options are only executed on the Exchange's trading
floor and are not executed electronically on the Exchange.
    \22\ FLEX Option fees today are not in addition to Options
Transaction Charges.
    \23\ Firms are subject to a maximum fee of $75,000 (``Monthly
Firm Fee Cap''). Firm Floor Option Transaction Charges and QCC
Transaction Fees, as defined in this section above, in the
aggregate, for one billing month may not exceed the Monthly Firm Fee
Cap per member organization when such members are trading in their
own proprietary account. All dividend, merger, and short stock
interest strategy executions (as defined in this Section II) are
excluded from the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. Reversal and conversion
strategy executions (as defined in this Section II) are included in
the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. QCC Transaction Fees are included in the
calculation of the Monthly Firm Fee Cap.
    \24\ Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a ``Monthly
Market Maker Cap'' of $550,000 for: (i) Electronic and floor Option
Transaction Charges; (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in
Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e));
and (iii) fees related to an order or quote that is contra to a PIXL
Order or specifically responding to a PIXL auction. The trading
activity of separate Specialist and Market Maker member
organizations is aggregated in calculating the Monthly Market Maker
Cap if there is Common Ownership between the member organizations.
All dividend, merger, short stock interest and reversal and
conversion strategy executions (as defined in this Section II) are
excluded from the Monthly Market Maker Cap.
    \25\ Today, the Exchange pays an Options Surcharge in BKX of
$0.10 per contract for all market participants except Customers.
Also, the Exchange pays an Options Surcharge in RUT, MNX and NDX of
$0.15 per contract for all market participants, except Customers. As
noted herein, RUT is delisted.
    \26\ Section III pricing includes options overlying currencies,
equities, ETFs, ETNs treasury securities and indexes not listed on
another exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to clarify that FLEX Options are not
eligible for strategy treatment. Today, the Exchange caps certain
dividend,\27\ merger,\28\ short stock interest \29\ and reversal and
conversion \30\ floor option transactions. FLEX Options are not
eligible for strategy treatment today. There is no mechanism today to
mark FLEX Option transactions for strategy caps, therefore today FLEX
Options are not eligible for strategy treatment. The Exchange proposes
to clarify in the new FLEX Pricing in Section IV, Part B that FLEX
Options will not be eligible for strategy treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ A dividend strategy is defined as transactions done to
achieve a dividend arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and
exercise of in-the-money options of the same class, executed the
first business day prior to the date on which the underlying stock
goes ex-dividend.
    \28\ A merger strategy is defined as transactions done to
achieve a merger arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise
of options of the same class and expiration date, executed the first
business day prior to the date on which shareholders of record are
required to elect their respective form of consideration, i.e., cash
or stock.
    \29\ A short stock interest strategy is defined as transactions
done to achieve a short stock interest arbitrage involving the
purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money options of the same
class.
    \30\ Reversal and conversion strategies are transactions that
employ calls and puts of the same strike price and the underlying
stock. Reversals are established by combining a short stock position
with a short put and a long call position that shares the same
strike and expiration. Conversions employ long positions in the
underlying stock that accompany long puts and short calls sharing
the same strike and expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to rename Section IV, Part B, ``Cancellation
Fees,'' as Part C and also proposes to rename Section IV, Part C,
``Options Regulatory Fee,'' as Part D.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \31\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \32\ in
particular, in that it provides for an equitable allocation of
reasonable fees and other charges among Exchange members and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Rebate Program
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Category A of the Customer Rebate
Program to pay rebates on PIXL Orders in Section II symbols for orders
that are greater than 999 contracts, regardless of the contra party, is
reasonable because the Exchange seeks to incentivize market
participants by offering additional opportunities to earn Customer
rebates on PIXL Orders.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Category A of the Customer Rebate
Program to pay rebates on PIXL Orders

in Section II symbols for orders that are greater than 999 contracts,
regardless of the contra party,\33\ is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will pay Customer rebates to any
market participant that transacts a PIXL Order greater than 999
contracts regardless of the contra party in Section II symbols. This
proposal would pay a rebate for a Customer PIXL Order in a Section II
symbol for orders greater than 999 contracts regardless of whether the
Customer PIXL Order is contra to an Initiating Order or a non-
Initiating Order. The Exchange will apply the Category A rebate
uniformly with respect to market participants transacting qualifying
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Today, a PIXL Order that is contra to a non-Initiating
Order interest is entitled to the Customer rebate in Section B of
the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II Amendments
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new pricing for Specialists and
Market Makers that are contra to a Customer Penny Pilot Options on ETFs
transacted on the Exchange's floor of $0.25 per contract in addition to
the Options Transaction Charges \34\ in Section II of the Pricing
Schedule is reasonable because the Exchange seeks to encourage more
orders in Penny Pilot Options on ETFs to be delivered and executed on
the Exchange's trading floor and therefore provides an opportunity for
floor participants to interact with that order. Additionally, the
proposed fees are in line with pricing at other options exchanges.\35\
The Exchange also proposes to assess this fee in order that it may
offer a rebate to the Customer on the contra-side of a Specialist and
Market Maker floor transaction in a Penny Pilot Option on an ETF. The
Exchange believes that paying a rebate of $0.25 per contract to
Customers on the contra-side of a Specialist and Market Maker Penny
Pilot Options on an ETF order will encourage market participants to
send Customer Penny Pilot Options on ETFs to the Exchange's floor for
execution to qualify for the rebate when they are contra to a
Specialist or Market Maker order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Specialists and Market Makers are assessed an Options
Transaction Charge of $0.25 per contract for transacting floor
trading ETFs in Penny Pilot Options. See Section II of the Pricing
Schedule. The Exchange does not assess Payment for Order Flow fees
for floor transactions. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \35\ See the Chicago Board Options Exchange Incorporated
(``CBOE'') Fees Schedule. CBOE assesses CBOE Market Makers
transaction fees for floor trading of ETFs in Penny Pilot Options of
$0.25 -$0.03 per contracts, depending on the number of contracts
executed per month (Liquidity Provider Scale) in addition to a $0.25
per contract payment for order flow fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new pricing for Specialists and
Market Makers that are contra to a Customer Penny Pilot Options on ETFs
transacted on the Exchange's trading floor of $0.25 per contract in
addition to the Options Transaction Charges \36\ in Section II of the
Pricing Schedule is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Today,
Customers do not pay transaction fees for Multiply Listed Penny and
Non-Penny Pilot Options, so Specialists and Market Makers will continue
to be assessed higher transaction fees. Also, unlike Professionals and
Broker-Dealers, the Exchange provides other pricing benefits to
Specialists and Market Makers such as a Monthly Market Maker Cap. Also,
when comparing Specialists and Market Makers to Firms and other market
participants it is important to note that Specialists and Market Makers
are assessed Payment for Order Flow fees (``PFOF'') when transacting
Customer electronic orders, but not floor transactions. Specialists and
Market Makers are assessed a higher fee in order to incentivize order
flow, similar to the manner in which the PFOF \37\ incentivizes order
flow for electronic transactions. Specialists and Market Makers
interact with that Customer order flow and benefit from it unlike other
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Specialists and Market Makers are assessed an Options
Transaction Charge of $0.25 per contract for transacting Floor ETFs
in Penny Pilot Options. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule. The
Exchange does not assess Payment for Order Flow fees for floor
transactions. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \37\ The Exchange assesses a $0.25 per contract PFOF for options
that are trading in the Penny Pilot Program and a $0.70 per contract
fee for remaining equity options in addition to other transaction
fees in Sections I and II of the Pricing Schedule with respect to
Customer orders. No payment for order flow fees will be assessed on
trades that are not delivered electronically. See Section II of the
Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to pay a $0.25 per contract rebate to a
Customer that is contra to a Specialist or Market Maker order in a
Penny Pilot Options on an ETF transacted on the Exchange's trading
floor is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customer
order flow is unique and such order flow attracts liquidity to the
market to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange will
uniformly pay all Customers the $0.25 per contract rebate if the order
is contra to a Specialist or Market Maker order in Penny Pilot Options
on ETFs transacted on the Exchange's trading floor.
    The Exchange's proposal to remove references to RUT in Section II
of the Pricing Schedule is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange delisted RUT as of April 24, 2013
and RUT is no longer traded on Phlx. The pricing is unnecessary.
Section IV Amendments
PIXL
    The Exchange's proposal to amend PIXL pricing at Section IV, Part A
of the Pricing Schedule to reduce the Initiating Order fee to $0.00 for
a Firm that is contra to a Customer PIXL Order that is greater than 999
contracts is reasonable for the reasons stated below. The Exchange is
attempting to attract PIXL order flow by incentivizing members. The
Exchange believes that this amendment will encourage market
participants to transact a greater number of larger sized orders in
PIXL. Today, the Exchange incentivizes market participants to transact
PIXL Orders by offering competitive pricing including Customer rebates
in Section B of the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange is instead offering
to reduce the PIXL Initiating Order Fee which is currently $0.07 or
$0.05 per contract if Customer Rebate Program Threshold Volume defined
in Section B is greater than 100,000 contracts per day in a month to
$0.00 for a Firm that is a contra to a Customer PIXL Order which
exceeds 999 contracts. The Exchange desires to incentivize Firms to
offer Customer PIXL Orders with respect to large orders (greater than
999 contracts) price improvement opportunities via PIXL because Firms
typically execute such large institutional orders as compared to other
market participants. The proposed PIXL Initiation Order Firm Fee
reduction to $0.00 per contract, when contra to a Customer PIXL Order,
is similar to the manner in which the Exchange assesses transaction
fees for Firm Floor Facilitation orders. Today, the Exchange waives
Firm Floor Options Transaction Charges \38\ for members executing
facilitation orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064 \39\ when such
members are trading in their own proprietary account. The Exchange
waives Firm Facilitation Fees because such fees serve to encourage
Firms to facilitate Customer order flow. Likewise, the Exchange seeks
to similarly assess Firm fees for PIXL orders, which are electronic
orders, as compared to floor

orders, by encouraging Firms to initiate PIXL Orders within the PIXL
auction mechanism in an effort to lower execution charges by
transacting with a Customer PIXL Order. When a Firm enters an
Initiating Order, similar to Firm Facilitation orders on the Exchange
floor, market participants are afforded an opportunity to respond to
the order which should in turn generate additional responders to a PIXL
auction. All market participants are eligible to respond to an
Initiating PIXL Orders. Therefore, offering Firms an opportunity to
deliver orders into the PIXL auction, for purposes of price
improvement, benefits all market participants by incentivizing order
interaction in PIXL. Also, the Exchange's proposal is similar to
pricing at CBOE,\40\ except the Exchange is offering to reduce the
Initiating Order Fee to $0.00 for a Firm only when the Initiating Order
is contra to a Customer PIXL Order that is greater than 999 contracts,
otherwise there is a fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Exchange assesses Firm Floor Options Transaction
Charges in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options of $0.25 per contract.
    \39\ Exchange Rule 1064, entitled ``Crossing, Facilitation and
Solicited Orders,'' provides at Rule 1064(b) that except as provided
in paragraph 1064(e), a Floor Broker holding an options order for a
public customer and a contra-side order may cross such orders in
accordance with Rule 1064(a) or may execute such orders as a
facilitation cross as specified in Rule 1064(b)(i)-(iii).
    \40\ For facilitation orders on CBOE, other than SPX, SPXpm,
SRO, VIX or other volatility indexes, OEX or XEO, no Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary transaction fees are assessed to a
Firm. CBOE defines facilitation orders as any paired order in which
a Clearing Trading Permit Holder (F) origin code is contra to any
other origin code, provided the same executing broker and clearing
firm are on both sides of the order) executed in AIM, open outcry,
or as a QCC or FLEX transaction. See CBOE's Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend PIXL pricing at Section IV, Part A
of the Pricing Schedule to reduce the Initiating Order fee to $0.00 for
a Firm that is contra to a Customer PIXL Order that is greater than 999
contracts is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons
which follow. With respect to the increased differential as between
Firms and other market participants, except Customers, who will
continue to pay either the $0.07 or the $0.05 per contract Initiating
Order Fee,\41\ the Exchange believes that, as mentioned above, Firms
typically execute such large institutional orders as compared to other
market participants. Customers do not pay a fee when contra to an
Initiating Order.\42\ It is only in a limited circumstance where the
Firm would pay no fee because the Firm Initiating Orders must be contra
to a Customer PIXL Order that is greater than 999 contracts, otherwise
there is a fee. Further, by assessing no fees, Firms should be
incentivized to execute more orders on the Exchange. To the extent that
this purpose is achieved, all of the Exchange's market participants
should benefit from the improved market liquidity. Likewise, the
proposal would increase the differential as between other market
participants, except Customers, that would pay the $0.30 per contract
PIXL Order fee when they are contra to an Initiating Order \43\ and the
Firm that would not pay a fee, but only in the limited circumstance
that the Firm is contra to a Customer PIXL Order and that order is
greater than 999 contracts. Customers do not pay a fee when contra to
an Initiating Order.\44\ Similar to Firm Facilitation on the Exchange's
trading floor, such fees serve to encourage Firms to facilitate
Customer order flow. As noted herein, Exchange seeks to encourage Firms
to initiate PIXL auctions within the PIXL auction mechanism in an
effort to lower execution charges by transacting with a Customer PIXL
Order. When a Firm enters an Initiating Order market participants are
afforded an opportunity to respond to the order which should in turn
generate additional responders to a PIXL auction. All market
participants are eligible to respond to an Initiating PIXL Orders.
Therefore, offering Firms an opportunity to deliver orders into the
PIXL auction, for purposes of price improvement, benefits all market
participants by incentivizing order interaction in PIXL. Today, the
differential for Firm floor facilitation is $0.25 per contract.\45\
While this differential is wider, it is not applicable on all
transactions but only in the limited circumstance that the Firm is
contra to a Customer PIXL Order and that order is greater than 999
contracts. As explained herein, Firms typically execute such large
institutional orders as compared to other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The Initiating Order Fee is $0.07 per contract or $0.05 per
contract depending on whether the Customer Rebate Program Threshold
Volume defined in Section B is greater than 100,000 contracts per
day in a month.
    \42\ See Section IV, Part A of the Pricing Schedule.
    \43\ Section IV, Part A of the Pricing Schedule provides when
the PIXL Order is contra to the Initiating Order a Customer PIXL
Order will be assessed $0.00 and all non-Customer market participant
PIXL Orders will be assessed $0.30 per contract when contra to the
Initiating Order for PIXL Order executions in Section I, Select
Symbols, as well as in Section II, Multiply Listed Options.
    \44\ See Section IV, Part A of the Pricing Schedule.
    \45\ All market participants, except Customers, are assessed a
Penny Pilot Option and Non-Penny Pilot Option Transaction Charge of
$0.25 per contract for floor transactions. See Section II of the
Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes the proposal is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory.
FLEX Pricing
    The Exchange's proposal to add a new Part B to Section IV entitled
``FLEX Transaction Fees'' and to amend the FLEX pricing is reasonable
for the reasons which follow. With respect to Multiply Listed Options
the Exchange is proposing to increase the FLEX Options pricing for
Professionals, Specialists, Market Makers, Broker-Dealers and Firms
from $0.10 to $0.15 per contract, which should not discourage market
participants from transacting FLEX Options.\46\ The Exchange has not
recently amended these fees. The FLEX Options are transacted on the
Exchange's trading floor and the process is not automated. Exchange
staff is involved in the process of processing requests for FLEX Orders
and costs associated with the Exchange's trading floor have risen over
the years. The Exchange believes that the increase will assist the
Exchange in offsetting costs while keeping such costs competitive with
other markets. The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the
Multiply Listed Options FLEX pricing is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange is assessing the same fees for
Multiply Listed Options on all market participants, except Customers.
Customers traditionally are not assessed transaction fees because
Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market. The Exchange
believes that the cost to transact FLEX Options remains competitive
with costs at other options Exchanges.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ FLEX Transaction Customer Fees for Multiply Listed Orders
on the Exchange's trading floor will continue to be assessed fee for
transacting FLEX Options
    \47\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not otherwise proposing to amend its treatment of
FLEX pricing. As is the case today, the Monthly Firm Fee Cap, the
Monthly Market Maker Cap and the Options Surcharges in BKX, MNX and NDX
will continue to apply. Also, the Exchange is not amending the FLEX
pricing for Singly Listed Options, which will continue to be assessed
the pricing in Section III of the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange will
also continue to waive FLEX transaction fees for a Firm when such
members are trading in their own proprietary accounts pursuant to
Exchange Rule 1064, as is the case today. The Exchange's proposal to
clarify that FLEX Options are not eligible for strategy treatment is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because today
market participants may not mark a FLEX Option as eligible for a
strategy transaction. The Exchange believes that adding a clarifying
sentence to specifically state that FLEX Options will not qualify for
strategy treatment will clarify the Pricing Schedule to the benefit of
all market participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that its
proposal to amend Category A of the Customer Rebate Program does not
impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange is offering
to pay Customer rebates on PIXL Orders greater than 999 contracts
regardless of the contra party for all market participants. The
Exchange believes that assessing additional fees to Specialists and
Market Makers does not create an undue burden on competition because
the Exchange is proposing to offer Customers a rebate which should
attract Customer order flow to the benefit of Specialists, Market
Makers and other market participants that interact with such order
flow. Today, the Exchange assesses Specialists and Market Makers PFOF
for electronic transaction to similarly attract order flow to the
Exchange when the Specialist and Market Maker are contra to a Customer
order.
    The PIXL pricing is proposed to incentivize Firms to bring
Initiating Orders to a PIXL auction. The Exchange does not believe that
the proposed PIXL pricing creates an undue burden on competition, but
rather encourages competition among market participants to price
improve the order. Other market participants may respond to a PIXL
Initiating Order. The Exchange does not believe that the differentials
created as between Firms and other market participants, in terms of the
cost of participating in a PIXL transaction, while greater, creates an
undue burden on competition because the Firm Initiating Order Fee will
only be reduced in limited circumstances and most likely by a Firm. By
reducing the Initiating Order Fee for a Firm in these limited
circumstances, the Exchange is incentivizing Firms to execute more
orders on the Exchange. To the extent that this purpose is achieved,
all of the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the
improved market liquidity.
    The FLEX pricing in Multiply Listed Options is the same pricing for
all market participants except Customers, who are not assessed FLEX
Options transaction fees in Multiply Listed Options because Customer
order brings liquidity to the market which benefits all market
participants. The Exchange does not believe that the FLEX pricing
creates an undue burden on competition.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
eleven exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
Exchange described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust
market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged
and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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.\48\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2013-49 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-Phlx-2013-49. 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-49 and should be
submitted on or before June 5, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11520 Filed 5-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 30038]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP20-52-000, CP20-52-001]

WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice Denying Late Intervention

    On February 14, 2020, as amended on July 28, 2020, WBI Energy
Transmission, Inc. (WBI) filed an application in Docket Nos. CP20-52-
000 and CP20-52-001 under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part
157 of the Commission's regulations seeking authorization to construct
and operate its North Bakken Expansion Project in Burke, McKenzie,
Mountrail, and Williams, Counties, North Dakota.
    On February 26, 2020 and August 4, 2020, the Commission issued
notices of WBI's application and amendment, establishing March 18,
2020, and August 25, 2020, respectively as the deadlines to file
motions to intervene. On May 26, 2021, the Natural Gas Supply
Association and the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (Industry Groups)
filed a late motion to intervene.
    Under Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
a motion to intervene must state the movant's interest in sufficient
factual detail to demonstrate that the movant has or represents an
interest that may be directly affected by the outcome of the proceeding
or that the movant's participation is in the public interest.\1\
Movants for late intervention must ``show good cause why the time
limitation should be waived'' \2\ and provide justification by
reference to the other factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.\3\ When acting on any
untimely motion to intervene, Rule 214(d) states that the Commission
may consider whether: (1) The movant had good cause; (2) disruption of
the proceeding might result from permitting intervention; (3) the
movant's interest is adequately represented by other parties in the
proceeding; (4) any prejudice to, or additional burdens upon, the
existing parties might result from permitting the intervention; and (5)
movant satisfied the Commission's filing requirements, including that
it demonstrates it is directly affected by the proceeding and its
intervention is in the public interest.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(2)(ii)-(iii).
    \2\ Id. Sec.  385.214(b)(3).
    \3\ Id. Sec.  385.214(d)(ii)-(iv) (factors include the potential
disruption caused by such late intervention, whether the movant's
interest is not adequately represented by other parties, and any
prejudice to existing parties). See Northern Natural Gas Co., 175
FERC ] 61,052 (2021).
    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In explaining why they were unable to intervene in a timely manner,
Industry Groups state that, due to the Commission's decision in an
unrelated proceeding, they seek to intervene in these proceedings to
allow them to protect their interests should the Commission announce a
new policy that might affect them.\5\ Here, the Industry Groups fail to
demonstrate they have an interest in the proceeding or good cause for
their failure to file a timely intervention.\6\ Thus, this notice
denies their untimely motion to intervene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Industry Groups Motion to Intervene at 4.
    \6\ See, e.g., Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 164 FERC ] 61,121, at
P 21 (2018) (denying late intervention when the primary reason for
late intervention was a concern about precedential effect).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing
of this notice must be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of
this notice, pursuant to section 19(a) of the Natural Gas Act, 15
U.S.C. 717r(a), and Rule 713 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.713.

    Dated: May 28, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11781 Filed 6-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52602-52605]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20590]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0029]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 69 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective August 23, 2013. The exemptions
expire on August 23, 2015.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On June 6, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (78 FR 34143). That notice listed 69 applicants' case histories.
The 69 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 69 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 69
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, retinal detachment, phthisis bulbi,
retinal stapholoma, complete loss of vision, refractive amblyopia,
optic nerve atrophy, exotropia, macular hemorrhage, prosthetic eye,
keratitis, traumatic globe rupture, chronic open angle glaucoma,
anisometropic amblyopia, macular retinal scar, scarring, ocular
histoplasmosis, toxoplasmosis, psuedophakia with nystagmus, hypoplastic
optic nerve, esotropia, retinal tear, angle recession glaucoma, central
serous retinopathy, macular hole, anterior ischemic optic neuropathy,
corneal scar, macular scar, and retinal scarring. In most cases, their
eye conditions were not recently developed. Forty-eight of the
applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had
them since childhood.
    The twenty-one individuals that sustained their vision conditions
as adults have had it for a period of 1 to 32 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 69 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 2 to 50
years. In the past 3 years, three of the drivers were involved in
crashes and six were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the June 6, 2013
notice (78 FR 34143).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers

demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a
conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying
conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to
have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate
safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 69 applicants, three of the drivers were involved in crashes and
six were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 69 applicants listed in the notice of June 6,
2013 (78 FR 34143).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 69 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment is
considered and discussed below.
    The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is in favor of
granting exemptions to Dennis Edler, Ronald Howard, and Desmond Waldor
after reviewing their driving histories.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 69 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Roger Bell (IL), Kolby Blackner (UT), Mark Bouchard (IL),
Michael Britt (MD), Daryl Carpenter (MD), Michael Cassella (NJ), Daniel
G. Cohen (VT), Twila Cole (OR), Brian Cordell (TX), Aubrey R. Cordrey,
Jr. (DE), Jimmie Crenshaw (AL), Thomas W. Crouch (IN), Alan E. Cutright
(MD), Jon K. Dale (UT), Bert A. Damm (MT), Jeffrey Dauterman (OH),
Brian Dowd (MA), Verlin L. Driskell (NE), Sonya Duff (IN), Dennis C.
Edler (PA), Randy L. Fales (MN), Heidi S. Feldhaus (SD), Robert Fox
(NY), Steve Garrett (CA), Keith M. Gehrman (WI), Scott Gilroy (OH),
Elbert D. Grant (NM), Henry M. Greer (KY), Michael L. Grogg (VA), Marc
C. Grooms (MO), Luc Guimond (WA), Walter A. Hanselman (IN), Richard D.
Holcomb (MN), Brian C. Holt (ME), Ronald E. Howard (PA), Berl C.
Jennings (VA), Michael Kelly (TX), Aaron D. Kerr (ME), Craig Mahaffey
(OH), Stanley Marshall (GA), Michael Martin (OH), Michael McGee (CA),
Ignar L. Meyer (WA), James W. Mize, Sr. (TN), Roy L. Morgan (IL), Rick
Nickell (OH), Richard E. Perry (CA), Freddy H. Pete (NV), Ricky Reeder
(TN), Louis A. Requena (NY), Berry A. Rodrigue, Jr. (LA), Stephen R.
Sargent (ME), Leonard Sheehan (WI), Michael L. Sherum (AL), Manjinder
Singh (WA), Wayne Stein (FL), Eddie B. Strange, Jr. (GA), Michael J.
Thane (OH), Larry A. Tidwell (MO), Dale Torkelson (WI), Norman
Vanderzyl (IA), John Vanek (MO), James D. Vorderbruggen (MN), Desmond
Waldor (PA), Alicia Waters (IL), Norman R. Wilson (WA), James G. Witt
(AZ), James L. Young (VA), and Sam D. Zachary (NC) from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (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 before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

     Issued on: August 19, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-20590 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 18011-18013]
[DOCID:fr02ap08-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57562; File No. SR-Amex-2008-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Elimination of the Options Marketing Fee Related to P/A
Orders That Are Routed Via the Options Linkage for Execution on an Away
Options Exchange

March 26, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 19, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. Amex has
designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by Amex under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the options marketing fee
related to principal acting as agent (``P/A'') orders that are routed
via the Options Linkage for execution on an away options exchange. The
text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.amex.com.

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. Amex 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 Exchange proposes to eliminate the options marketing fee
related to P/A Orders that are routed via the Options Linkage for
execution on an away options exchange. A P/A Order is an order for the
principal account of a specialist reflecting the terms of a related
unexecuted public customer order for which the specialist is acting as
agent. The Exchange believes that specialists, registered options
traders (``ROTs''), and supplemental registered options traders
(``SROTs'') should not be subject to the options marketing fee for P/A
Orders that are executed on an away options exchange.
    The options marketing fee is collected on those specialist, ROT,
and SROT transactions involving electronically executed customer orders
from firms accepting payment for directing their orders to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that, accordingly, the purpose of the
options marketing fee is to provide incentives for an order flow
provider to send customer order flow to the Amex.
    The Exchange states that if a specialist, ROT or SROT has
negotiated a payment to a firm of less than the marketing fee, the
difference between the marketing fee and the actual payment is refunded
to the specialist, ROT and SROT. The options marketing fee is also not
charged on transactions between and among ROTs and specialists.
    The current options marketing fee, on a per contract side basis, is
set forth below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Specialist and Registered     Supplemental Registered Options Trader
                                            Options Trader (ROT)                        (SROT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Options.........................  $0.75 or $0.35 or $0.40*..  0.75 or $0.35*
Exchange-Traded Fund Share Options       $0.75 or $0.35 or $0.40*..  $0.75 or $0.35*
 (including QQQQ Options and excluding
 SPY Options*).
SPY Options............................  $1.00 or $0.40*...........  $1.00
Trust Issued Receipt (HOLDR) Options...  $0.75 or $0.35 or $0.40*..  $0.75 or $0.35*
Index Options (including MNX Options     No Charge.................  No Charge.
 and excluding NDX and RUT Options).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The $0.35 options marketing fee applies to those series of Equity Options, Exchange Traded Fund Share Options,
  and Trust Issued Receipt Options that quote and trade in one cent increments under the penny pilot program.
  The $0.40 options marketing fee applies to those series of Equity Options, Exchange Traded Fund Share Options
  (including SPY Options), Trust Issued Receipt Options, and NDX and RUT Options that are manually executed
  customer orders of 1,000 contracts or greater.

    The Exchange states that the purpose of this proposal is to
eliminate the options marketing fees for specialists, ROTs, and SROTs
in those cases where an underlying customer order through a P/A Order
is routed to an away exchange as required by the Options Linkage Plan
and the related rules of the Exchange. In such an instance, the
Exchange believes that the purpose for imposing the options marketing
fee does not exist.
    The Exchange believes that this proposal to eliminate the options
marketing fee for P/A Orders that are routed via the Options Linkage to
an away options exchange for execution is necessary so that
specialists, ROTs, and SROTs are not paying an options marketing fee
for orders that are not executed on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \6\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using exchange facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    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 foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) \8\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee,
or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will
take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days
of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Amex-2008-26 on 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 Number SR-Amex-2008-26. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-26 and should be
submitted on or before April 23, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-6730 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 144 (Friday, July 28, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48722-48723]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16037]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31499; Amdt. No. 4071]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective July 28, 2023. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 28, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg 26, Room 217,
Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums
and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its
associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed
on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this
amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20.
The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B,
when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the typed of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for Part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally

current. It, therefore---(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2023.
Thomas J. Nichols,
Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service Manager, Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part
97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates
specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 7 September 2023

Muscle Shoals, AL, KMSL, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A
Groton (New London), CT, KGON, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 8A
Leesburg, FL, KLEE, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 2E
Leesburg, FL, KLEE, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5A
Titusville, FL, X21, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig-B, CANCELED
Donalsonville, GA, 17J, VOR-A, Amdt 3B, CANCELED
Moultrie, GA, KMGR, NDB-A, Amdt 1, CANCELED
Michigan City, IN, KMGC, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A
Grand Rapids, MI, KGRR, RADAR 1, Amdt 10C, CANCELED
Shelby, MT, KSBX, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-C
Shelby, MT, KSBX, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 2C
Reno, NV, KRNO, RNAV (GPS) X RWY 35R, Amdt 3A
Cleveland, OH, KBKL, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7A
Jamestown, TN, 2A1, VOR-A, Amdt 2A, CANCELED
Alice, TX, KALI, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A

Effective 5 October 2023

Anchorage, AK, PANC, ILS OR LOC RWY 7L, ILS RWY 7L (SA CAT I), ILS
RWY 7L (SA CAT II), Amdt 5
Anchorage, AK, PANC, ILS OR LOC RWY 7R, ILS RWY 7R (SA CAT I), ILS
RWY 7R (CAT II), ILS RWY 7R (CAT III), Amdt 5
Brevig Mission, AK, PFKT, BREVIG THREE, Graphic DP
Brevig Mission, AK, PFKT, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Galena, AK, PAGA, VOR RWY 26, Orig
Northway, AK, PAOR, NORTHWAY ONE, Graphic DP
Northway, AK, PAOR, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1
Northway, AK, PAOR, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 2
Northway, AK, PAOR, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Northway, AK, PAOR, VOR-A, Amdt 2
Tok, AK, PFTO, GULKANA ONE, Graphic DP
Tok, AK, PFTO, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1
Tok, AK, PFTO, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1
Tok, AK, PFTO, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Williams, AZ, KCMR, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig
Williams, AZ, KCMR, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Coalinga, CA, C80, AVENAL ONE, Graphic DP
Coalinga, CA, C80, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig
Coalinga, CA, C80, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Indianapolis, IN, KTYQ, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 6
Indianapolis, IN, KTYQ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2
Indianapolis, IN, KTYQ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Indianapolis, IN, KTYQ, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Ruston, LA, KRSN, NDB RWY 18, Orig-G, CANCELED
Ruston, LA, KRSN, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2
Worcester, MA, KORH, ILS OR LOC RWY 11, ILS RWY 11 (CAT II), ILS RWY
11 (CAT III), Amdt 25B
Worcester, MA, KORH, ILS OR LOC RWY 29, Amdt 4E
Leonardtown, MD, 2W6, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 3
Leonardtown, MD, 2W6, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Detroit, MI, KDET, ILS OR LOC RWY 15, Amdt 11A
St Paul, MN, 21D, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Kansas City, MO, KMKC, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 6
Kansas City, MO, KMKC, ILS OR LOC RWY 19, Amdt 24A
Kansas City, MO, KMKC, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 3B
Kansas City, MO, KMKC, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 2A
Kansas City, MO, KMKC, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 19, Orig
Kansas City, MO, KMKC, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 19, Amdt 2
Kansas City, MO, KMKC, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5A
Mountain View, MO, KMNF, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1
Bedford, PA, KHMZ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 2A
Bedford, PA, KHMZ, VOR-A, Amdt 1B, CANCELED
Chambersburg, PA, N68, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1
Chambersburg, PA, N68, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1
Chambersburg, PA, N68, VOR/DME-B, Amdt 2B, CANCELED
Big Lake, TX, E41, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Dallas, TX, KDAL, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 17A
Winnie/Stowell, TX, T90, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Winnie/Stowell, TX, T90, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Dixon, WY, KDWX, CARBON TWO, Graphic DP
Dixon, WY, KDWX, DIXON TWO, Graphic DP

[FR Doc. 2023-16037 Filed 7-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P