[Federal Register: October 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61922-61925]
[DOCID:fr17oc08-154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID FMCSA-2008-0292]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 22 individuals
for exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal vision standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2008-0292 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building

Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    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 acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgment 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 the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://Docketsinfo.dot.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
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.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions
at the end of each 2-year period. The 22 individuals listed in this
notice each have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate
commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of
each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve
the required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Timothy S. Ballard

    Mr. Ballard, age 49, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left,
20/150. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``In
my opinion, there is no reason to restrict Mr. Ballard from driving a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Ballard reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 5 years, accumulating 250,000 miles. He holds a Class B
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from North Carolina. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Paul W. Browning

    Mr. Browning, 55, has had retinal detachment in his right eye since
1996. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion
vision and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his
optometrist noted, ``It is my medical opinion that Mr. Browning has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Browning reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 12 years, accumulating 300,000 miles, tractor-trailer
combinations for 5 years, accumulating 150,000 miles, and buses for 5
years, accumulating 7,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New
Mexico. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV. He changed lanes
improperly.

Timothy D. Carle

    Mr. Carle, 66, has loss of vision in his right eye due to a retinal
detachment that occurred 20 years ago. The best corrected visual acuity
in his right eye is light perception and in the left, 20/20. Following
an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``I certify that, in my
medical opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle safely.'' Mr. Carle reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 19 years, accumulating 446,348
miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Ronald W. Garner

    Mr. Garner, 61, has optic neuropathy due to traumatic injury since
1993. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in
the left, 20/80. Following an examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``I feel Ron has sufficient vision to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Garner reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 43 years, accumulating 1.7 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Paul A. Gregerson

    Mr. Gregerson, 71, has had age-related macular degeneration since
2004. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/300 and
in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist
noted, ``He retains excellent central vision of his left eye and with
the complete visual field of both eyes, it is my opinion that he is
visually competent to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Gregerson
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 45 years,
accumulating 5.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Benjamin P. Hall

    Mr. Hall, 49, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60 and in the
left, 20/25. Following an examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``I can medically certify that Mr. Hall has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Hall reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years,
accumulating 20,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New York. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Frank L. Langston

    Mr. Langston, 70, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the
left, 20/400. Following an examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``In my opinion, his vision is sufficient to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Langston reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 5 years, accumulating 250,000

miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 4
million miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Alabama. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Bruce J. Lewis

    Mr. Lewis, 41, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15 and in the left,
20/400. Following an examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist noted,
``In my medical opinion, Mr. Lewis has sufficient vision to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Lewis reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 19 years, accumulating 760,000 miles. He holds a Class 10
operator's license from Rhode Island, which allows him to operate any
motor vehicle except a motorcycle and a vehicle that weighs more than
26,000 pounds, carries 16 or more passengers or transports placarded
amounts of hazardous materials. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

John L. Lolley

    Mr. Lolley, 40, has a prosthetic left eye due to a history of
congenital cataract and glaucoma. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist noted,
``Mr. Lolley has adequate vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Lolley reported that he has driven straight trucks for 9 years,
accumulating 36,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Alabama. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Kenny Y. Louie

    Mr. Louie, 40, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the
left, 20/200. Following an examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``From my evaluation, with both eyes, this patient has
sufficient vision and a full visual field to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Louie reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 4,250 miles. He
holds a Class C operator's license from California. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Josue Maqueira

    Mr. Maqueira, 66, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due
to optic atrophy. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20 and in the left, 20/400. Following an examination in 2008, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``I believe he is able to drive a commercial
vehicle safely as a result of his excellent vision with glasses worn
and his full visual field in the right eye, even though his left eye is
legally blind.'' Mr. Maqueira reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 40 years, accumulating 4.8 million miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 4.8 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Lido J. Martocchio

    Mr. Martocchio, 51, has loss of vision in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, hand motion vision. Following
an examination in 2008 his optometrist noted, ``Mr. Lido's visual
deficiency is currently stable. Although he is monocular, he does not
need any corrective lenses to drive and he does have sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle
in my professional opinion.'' Mr. Martocchio reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 21 years, accumulating 315,000 miles. He
holds a Class B CDL from California. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Michael W. McCann

    Mr. McCann, 48, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400 and in the
left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted,
``Mr. McCann's current ocular health and visual fields are excellent.
His present visual status is sufficient to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. McCann reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating 390,000 miles,
tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating 650,000 miles,
and buses for 18 years, accumulating 180,000 miles. He holds a Class A
CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one
crash, for which he was not cited, and one conviction for speeding in a
CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 19 mph.

Duffy P. Metrejean, Jr.

    Mr. Metrejean, 54, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the
left, 20/60. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted,
``In my opinion, Mr. Metrejean has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Metrejean
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years,
accumulating 2 million miles. He holds a Class D operator's license
from Louisiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Hudson M. Osborne

    Mr. Osborne, 44, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
ocular trauma sustained as a child. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his
optometrist noted, ``It is my medical opinion that Hudson Osborne has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Osborne reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 5 years, accumulating 300,000 miles, and buses for 1 year,
accumulating 15,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Nevada. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, for which he was
cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Stephen P. Preslopsky

    Mr. Preslopsky, 53, has loss of vision in his left eye due to a
cataract. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20
and in the left, hand motion vision. Following an examination in 2008,
his ophthalmologist noted, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Preslopsky's
vision is sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle, however, this is
only from a medical stand point.'' Mr. Preslopsky reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating 256,500 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 21 years, accumulating 1 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Ross C. Rich

    Mr. Rich, 54, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic injury.
The best corrected visual acuity in his left eye is 20/20. Following an
examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my medical
opinion, Mr. Rich has sufficient vision in his left eye to perform the

driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Rich
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating
156,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Melinda V. Salas

    Ms. Salas, 47, has a prosthetic right eye due to traumatic injury
since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in her left eye is
20/20. Following an examination in 2008, her optometrist noted, ``In my
medical opinion, Melinda has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Ms. Salas reported that she
has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 27,000 miles. She
holds a Class C operator's license from California. Her driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Jayland R. Siebers

    Mr. Siebers, 52, has a prosthetic right eye due to meningioma of
the optic nerve that occurred in 1993. The visual acuity in his left
eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted,
``I certify that he meets the visual requirements outlined to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr.
Siebers reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 32
years, accumulating 3.8 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Kansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
one conviction for speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 12
mph.

Christopher G. Strand

    Mr. Strand, 37, has aphakia in his left eye due to a traumatic
injury that occurred 20 years ago. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/100. Following an
examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Chris's
visual status and adaptation to it is sufficient for him to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Strand reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 12 years, accumulating 1.3 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Michael J. Welle

    Mr. Welle, 52, has aphakia in his right eye due to a traumatic
injury that he sustained as a child. The visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/400 and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his
optometrist noted, ``Mr. Welle has had this condition for 40 years and
it has been stable and he has adapted very well, his peripheral vision
and color vision are normal and in my professional opinion has more
than adequate vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Welle
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 24 years,
accumulating 2.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Patricia A. White

    Ms. White, 39, has had amblyopia in her right eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in her right eye is 20/400 and in the
left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, her optometrist noted,
``I feel that Ms. White has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Ms. White reported
that she has driven buses for 14 years, accumulating 406,000 miles. She
holds a Class D operator's license from Illinois. Her driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business November 17, 2008. Comments will
be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments,
FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant
information that becomes available after the comment closing date.
Interested persons should monitor the public docket for new material.

    Issued on: October 9, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-24691 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 135 (Monday, July 17, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32671-32673]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14944]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0361; FRL-9964-93-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; KY; Revisions to Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2016, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through
the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), submitted a revision to
the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to the
Commonwealth's air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO), lead
(Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, particulate matter
(both PM10 and PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) to reflect the historical and current National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve this SIP
revision because the Commonwealth has demonstrated that these change
are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). KDAQ's submission
also includes additional air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide,
fluorides, and odor; however, EPA is not proposing to approve these
state standards into the SIP.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0361 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review,
and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS to protect public health and
welfare. The CAA requires periodic review of the air quality criteria--
the science upon which the standards are based--and the standards
themselves. EPA's regulatory provisions that govern the NAAQS are found
at 40 CFR 50--National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards. In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve changes in
Kentucky's September 9, 2016, submission amending the Commonwealth's
regulations for ambient air quality standards to reflect the historical
and current NAAQS, which are found at 401 KAR 53:010. The revision also
includes textual changes to language in the regulation to provide
regulatory clarity, as well as updating and reformatting the Appendix A
table of ambient air quality standards and Appendix A footnotes. The
SIP submittal amending Kentucky's regulations can be found in the
docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov and is summarized
below.

II. EPA's Analysis of Kentucky's SIP Revisions

    The September 9, 2016, SIP submission revises Kentucky regulation
401 KAR 53:010 by updating the Commonwealth's ambient air quality
standards to reflect the historical and current NAAQS for CO, Pb,
NO2, ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and
SO2; modifying language in the regulation to provide
regulatory clarity; and updating and reformatting the Appendix A
ambient air quality standards table and Appendix A footnotes. The
updates to the air quality standards are discussed in further detail
below.

a. CO

    On September 13, 1985, EPA revoked the 1-hour and 8-hour secondary
NAAQS for CO. See 50 FR 37484. Accordingly, in the September 9, 2016,
SIP submission, Kentucky revised regulation 401 KAR 53:010 to update
its air quality standards for CO to be consistent with the NAAQS
promulgated by EPA in 1985.

b. Pb

    On November 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary and
secondary NAAQS for Pb at a level of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\), based on a rolling 3-month average. See 73 FR 66964.
Accordingly, in the September 9, 2016, SIP submission, Kentucky revised
regulation 401 KAR 53:010 to update its air quality standards for Pb to
be consistent with the NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008.

c. NO2

    On February 9, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-
year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-
hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474. Accordingly, in the
September 9,

2016, SIP submission, Kentucky revised regulation 401 KAR 53:010 to
update its air quality standards for NO2 to be consistent
with the NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2010.

d. Ozone

    On July 18, 1997, EPA revoked the 1-hour primary and secondary
NAAQS for ozone.\1\ To replace the 1-hour primary and secondary NAAQS
for ozone, EPA promulgated a new primary and secondary 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone at a level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), based on an annual
fourth-highest maximum 8-hour concentration averaged over three years.
See 62 FR 38856. On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a new 8-hour
primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at a level of 0.075 ppm, based on
an annual fourth-highest maximum 8-hour concentration averaged over
three years. See 73 FR 16483. On October 26, 2015, EPA promulgated a
new primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at a level of 0.070 ppm,
based on an annual fourth-highest maximum 8-hour concentration averaged
over three years. See 80 FR 65292. At that same time, EPA revoked the
1997 8-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone.\2\ Accordingly, in
the September 9, 2016, SIP submission, Kentucky revised regulation 401
KAR 53:010 to update its air quality standards for ozone to be
consistent with the NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 1997, 2008, and 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas in 2005.
However, some areas have continuing obligations under the standard.
    \2\ EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 2015. However,
some areas have continuing obligations under the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new 24-hour primary and
secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 at a level of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based
on the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations
averaged over three years. EPA also promulgated a new annual primary
and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 at a level of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\,
based on the annual arithmetic mean averaged over three years. See 62
FR 38652. On October 17 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour primary and
secondary PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based on the 98th
percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations averaged over
three years. At that same time, EPA revoked the annual PM10
NAAQS. See 71 FR 61144. On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary
annual NAAQS for PM2.5 at a level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\, based on
the annual arithmetic mean averaged over three years. See 78 FR 3085;
January 15, 2013. Accordingly, in the September 9, 2016, SIP
submission, Kentucky revised regulation 401 KAR 53:010 to update its
air quality standards for PM10 and PM2.5 to be
consistent with the NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 1997, 2006, and 2012.

f. SO2

    On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2
NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentration. At that
same time, EPA revoked the 24-hour SO2 NAAQS.\3\ See 75 FR
35520. Accordingly, in the September 9, 2016, SIP submission, Kentucky
revised regulation 401 KAR 53:010 to update its air quality standards
for SO2 to be consistent with the NAAQS promulgated by EPA
in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 1971 sulfur dioxide standards remain in effect until one
(1) year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except
that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the
1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain
or maintain the 2010 standards are approved, in accordance with 40
CFR part 52, subpart S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Kentucky regulation 401 KAR 53:010--Ambient air quality
standards, effective July 19, 2016. EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov
and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for
more information).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky September
9, 2016, SIP revision identified in section II above, because these
changes are consistent with the CAA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 29, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-14944 Filed 7-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31989-31993]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12548]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69612; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Establish
a Lead Market Maker Program on the NASDAQ OMX PSX Market and To Make
Related Changes to the Schedule Fees and Rebates for Execution of
Quotes and Orders

May 21, 2013.
    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 May 7, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change, which filing was amended by Amendment No. 1
thereto on May 15, 2013, as described in Items 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 establish a Lead Market Maker (``LMM'')
program on its NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX'') market and to make related
changes to its schedule of fees and rebates for execution of quotes and
orders on PSX. Phlx proposes to implement the proposed rule change as
soon as practicable following Commission approval. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaqomxphlx/phlx/, at the Exchange's
principal office, 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 Commission recently approved modifications to the rules
governing the operation of Phlx's PSX trading platform in order to
replace its price/size/pro rata allocation model with a price/time
model, and to permit member organizations to register as market makers
in securities traded on PSX.\3\ Phlx is now proposing to adopt a
program for designating Lead Market Makers in particular securities,
and adopting associated pricing changes. The overall purpose of these
changes is to use financial incentives to encourage member
organizations to become LMMs on PSX and adhere to rigorous standards of
market quality.\4\ In doing so, the Exchange hopes to increase the
attractiveness of PSX as a trading venue and benefit all of its market
participants by increasing the extent to which liquidity is available
on PSX at or near the national best bid and national best offer
(``NBBO'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69452 (April 25, 2013),
78 FR 25512 (May 1, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-24).
    \4\ In its ``Recommendations Regarding Regulatory Responses to
the Market Events of May 6, 2010'' (February 18, 2011) (available at
http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@aboutcftc/documents/file/jacreport_021811.pdf), the Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee on
Emerging Regulatory Issues recommend that the Commission ``consider
encouraging, through incentives or regulation, persons who regularly
implement market maker strategies to maintain best buy and sell
quotations which are `reasonably related to the market,' '' noting
that such ``measures could certainly include differential pricing.''
Phlx believes that this proposed rule change is responsive to this
recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An NMS stock that has been selected by the Exchange as a security
for which it wishes to designate a Lead Market Maker will be known as a
``Qualified Security.'' Initially, the Exchange expects that Qualified
Securities will be limited to trust-issued receipts, portfolio
depository receipts, managed fund shares, and other forms of exchange-
traded products (``ETPs''). Phlx has the discretion, however, to
designate any NMS stock eligible for trading on PSX as a Qualified
Security for which an LMM may be designated. The Exchange will select
Qualified Securities based on factors that include, but may not be
limited to, historical trading patterns and the interest expressed by
member organizations in making a market in particular securities.
Depending on its

trading volume in a particular month, a Qualified Security may be
categorized as an ``LMM Category 1 Security'' (a Qualified Security
with an average daily volume on all exchanges and trade reporting
facilities during the prior three months of at least 50 million shares
per day); an ``LMM Category 2 Security'' (a Qualified Security with an
average daily volume on all exchanges and trade reporting facilities
during the prior three months of at least 5 million but less than 50
million shares per day); an ``LMM Category 3 Security'' (a Qualified
Security with an average daily volume on all exchanges and trade
reporting facilities during the prior three months of at least 1
million but less than 5 million shares per day); or an ``LMM Category 4
Security'' (a Qualified Security with an average daily volume on all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities during the prior three months
of less than 1 million shares per day).
    For liquidity-providing displayed quotes/orders entered by a member
organization in a Qualified Security for which it has been designated
as the Lead Market Maker, the Exchange proposes to pay the following
rebates: $0.0032 per share executed for an LMM Category 1 Security,
$0.0038 per share executed for an LMM Category 2 Security, $0.0042 per
share executed for an LMM Category 3 Security, and $0.0048 per share
executed for an LMM Category 4 Security.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that these rebates are being added to the
PSX fee schedule only with respect to transactions in securities
listed on exchanges other than NYSE. This is the case because at
this time, the Exchange expects to designate LMMs only for ETPs, and
NYSE does not list a significant number of ETPs at this time. Thus,
if the Exchange proposed to designate an LMM for a NYSE-listed
security, it would amend the fee schedule at that time to add the
applicable pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to qualify for the foregoing pricing for a given Qualified
Security, an LMM must, through the MPID in which is registered as a PSX
Market Maker, adhere to the following performance standards with
respect to that Qualified Security:
     The LMM must at all times during regular market hours \6\
maintain a displayed quote/order on each side of the market that is
within at least 5% of the NBBO and that has a size of at least 500
shares; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 9:30 a.m. through 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, or such shorter
period as may be designated by the Exchange on a day when PSX closes
early (e.g., the day after Thanksgiving).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The LMM must maintain a displayed bid quotation and/or
displayed offer quotation of at least 100 shares at the national best
bid and/or the national best offer at least 25% of the time during
regular market hours.
     For a period of six months following initial designation
as an LMM for a ``Group'' of Qualified Securities,\7\ the LMM must
adhere to such additional commitments with respect to size and/or
percentage time at the national best bid and/or national best offer as
to which the LMM agreed when it was selected as an LMM, measured as an
average across all Qualified Securities in the Group. The selection
process, and the process for an LMM to make additional market quality
commitments, is discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A ``Group'' means one or more Qualified Securities
designated from time to time by the Exchange for purposes of being
assigned to an LMM. As discussed below, an LMM may be assigned to a
Group of Qualified Securities through a competitive bidding process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, an LMM will not qualify for the pricing for LMMs for
any Qualified Security unless the LMM, through the MPID in which it is
registered as a PSX Market Maker (i) provides an average daily volume
of 5 million or more shares of liquidity in all securities during the
month and (ii) adheres to the foregoing performance standards with
respect to at least 90% of the Qualified Securities for which it is the
LMM. Any period of time for which an LMM has received an excused
withdrawal under Rule 3219 will not be considered in determining an
LMM's compliance with performance requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ PSX Rule 3219 provides that a member organization may be
temporarily excused from market making obligations based on a range
of factors, such as equipment or connectivity problems, illness,
vacation, non-voluntary suspension of a member organization's
clearing arrangement, or advice of legal counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to designate an LMM for a particular Qualified Security,
the Exchange will engage in the following process:
    (1) Qualified Securities will be assigned to a ``Group,'' defined
as one or more Qualified Securities designated from time to time by the
Exchange for purposes of being assigned to an LMM. As with the
determination that a particular security will be a Qualified Security,
the assignment of Qualified Securities to a Group will be based on
factors that include, but may not be limited to, historical trading
patterns and the interest expressed by member organizations in making a
market in particular securities.
    (2) Following the selection of a Group by the Exchange, the
Exchange shall publicly announce an auction for that Group. Under such
an auction, member organizations that are registered PSX Market Makers
may submit a bid to become the LMM for all of the Qualified Securities
in such Group. Bids must be submitted within the time frame specified
by the Exchange, which time frame shall not be less than five business
days from the date on which the auction is announced. Each bidder must
agree to adhere to the minimum performance standards described above,
and may, in addition, offer to adhere to heightened standards as
follows:
     Percentage of time at which the LMM's bid quotation and/or
offer quotation is at the national best bid and/or national best offer
during regular market hours, in increments of 5% of the trading day
above the base percentage of 25% of the trading day; and
     Size of bid quotation at the national best bid and offer
quotation at the national best offer, in increments of 100 shares on
each side above the base size of 100 shares on each side.
    The LMM for a group of Qualified Securities will be designated on
the basis of submitted bids, as follows:
     The bidder with the highest commitment to percentage of
time at the national best bid and/or national best offer will be
designated as the LMM. In the event of a tie, the bidder with the
highest commitment to size at the national best bid and national best
offer will be designated as the LMM. In the event of a tie with respect
to both criteria, the bidder with the highest total volume on PSX
during the prior twelve calendar months will be designated.
    The designation will be effective on the first day of the month
following the completion of the bidding process. If the Exchange is
unable to allocate one or more Qualified Securities based on a bidding
process because no member organization submits bids for it, the
Exchange will assign the Qualified Security to the first registered
market maker that expresses in interest in becoming the LMM. To allow
member organizations to become aware of opportunities to become an LMM,
the Exchange will publish on its Web site a list of Qualified
Securities that have not been assigned an LMM.
    After serving as an LMM for a particular group of Qualified
Securities for a period of six months, an LMM may withdraw from serving
as LMM for any or all such Qualified Securities, by providing the
Exchange three months' notice (or such shorter notice period as to
which the Exchange may consent). In the event of an LMM withdrawal, the
affected Qualified Securities will be reassigned through the auction
process described above. In addition, the Exchange may determine that a
particular security will cease to be a Qualified Security, but shall
provide at

least three months' advance notice of such a determination.
    In the event an LMM fails to meet the performance standards
detailed above with respect to a particular Qualified Security during a
particular month, the Exchange will notify the LMM of such
deficiency.\9\ If the LMM fails to meet these performance standards
with respect to the same Qualified Security during a second consecutive
month, the Exchange may reassign such Qualified Security to another LMM
by conducting an auction in the manner described above.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In addition, as noted above, the LMM will not receive LMM
rebates with respect to that Qualified Security.
    \10\ Thus, although an LMM is required to meet market quality
requirements with respect to only 90% of the Qualified Securities to
which it is assigned in order to receive the rebates associated with
being a LMM in any security, it may lose its LMM designation with
respect to Qualified Securities for which it does not meet these
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a registered market maker for a Qualified Security that is not
the LMM for such Qualified Security wishes to become the LMM for such
Qualified Security, it may initiate a challenge by notifying the
Exchange of its intention to initiate a challenge.\11\ If this occurs,
the incumbent LMM will be notified of the challenge, and the
performance of the incumbent LMM and the challenger will be evaluated
over the course of the following two calendar months with respect to
both percentage of time and size at the NBBO. More than one member
organization may challenge an LMM at one time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ However, no challenge may be initiated for the first six
months after a Qualified Security has been assigned to a particular
LMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If, during the two-month period of the challenge, a challenger (i)
satisfies the requirements for LMM pricing (i.e., it has an average
daily volume of 5 million or more shares of liquidity in all securities
during the month and satisfies the performance standards for the
Qualified Security, as described above) and (ii) exceeds the incumbent
LMM's time at the NBBO by a daily average of at least 5%, or equals or
exceeds the LMM's time at the NBBO by a daily average of less than 5%
but exceeds the LMM's size at the NBBO by a daily average of at least
100 shares, the Qualified Security will be reassigned to the challenger
on the first day of the following month. If there is more than one
challenger and both satisfy the foregoing requirements, the Qualified
Security will be assigned to the challenger with the highest time at
the NBBO (or the highest size at the NBBO in the event of a tie).
Moreover, during the challenge months, the challenger will be eligible
to receive credits with respect to providing liquidity through
displayed orders in the Qualified Security that is the subject of the
challenge at the rates paid to an LMM, provided that it satisfied all
volume requirements and performance standards.
    If a challenger does not, over the course of the two challenge
months, satisfy the requirements described above for receiving
assignment of the Qualified Security, the Qualified Security will be
retained by the incumbent LMM. If the challenger did, however, exceed
the average time at the NBBO and average size at the NBBO of the
incumbent LMM during the month immediately prior to the challenge
months, and the challenger satisfied all volume requirements and
performance standards associated with being an LMM for the Qualified
Security, the challenger will receive, for the months of the challenge,
the following credits with respect to providing liquidity through
displayed orders in the Qualified Security that is the subject of the
challenge: $0.0031 per share executed with respect to an LMM Category 1
Security; $0.0034 per share executed with respect to an LMM Category 2
Security; $0.0036 per share executed with respect to an LMM Category 3
Security; and $0.0039 per share executed with respect to an LMM
Category 4 Security.
    If a challenger does not, over the course of the two challenge
months, satisfy the requirements described above for receiving
assignment of the Qualified Security, and did not exceed the average
time at the NBBO and average size at the NBBO of the incumbent LMM
during the month immediately prior to the challenge months, the
Qualified Security will be retained by the incumbent LMM, the
challenger will receive the credits otherwise applicable to its
provision of liquidity, and the challenger may not attempt to challenge
with respect to that Qualified Security again for a period of six
months.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In addition to the foregoing changes, Phlx is also
proposing to move the location of the following sentence--``For
purposes of determining average daily volume hereunder, any day that
the market is not open for the entire trading day will be excluded
from such calculation''--from the end of paragraph (a) of the
section governing fees for order execution and routing to the
beginning. Phlx is also changing the reference to ``Order'' in the
heading of such section to ``Quote/Order''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and with Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that the proposal
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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 of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest;
and also in that the proposal provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which Phlx operates or
controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary purpose of the process for designating LMMs and the
associated pricing incentives proposed in this rule change is to use
higher liquidity provider rebates to encourage market participants to
make markets in Qualified Securities and support their trading by
adhering to performance standards that are designed to markedly
increase the extent to which PSX is quoting at or near the NBBO, as
well as the size of its quote. The Exchange believes that a program
designed to increase the depth of liquidity available at or near the
inside market will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest, because increasing such displayed
liquidity increases opportunities for investors to have their orders
executed at the best available prices, rather than having portions of
their orders executed at inferior prices, and also enhances the price
discovery process. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the program
has the potential to improve the prices at which investors' orders are
executed and to dampen price volatility. Thus, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change is responsive to the recommendation of
the Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues
that the Commission ``consider encouraging, through incentives or
regulation, persons who regularly implement market maker strategies to
maintain best buy and sell quotations which are `reasonably related to
the market,''' noting that such

``measures could certainly include differential pricing.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Recommendations Regarding Regulatory Responses to the
Market Events of May 6, 2010'' (February 18, 2011) (available at
http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@aboutcftc/documents/file/jacreport_021811.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed process of
selecting LMMs will promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest because it relies on the objective criteria of a market
maker's commitment to time and size at the inside market, rather than a
subjective or random process. Accordingly, the process will eliminate
the potential for bias in the selection process and provide a mechanism
by which bidders with the highest commitment to promotion of the
Exchange's market quality may be selected. The Exchange further
believes that the proposed framework for an auction, under which
bidders are provided at least five business days to submit a bid
following the announcement of an auction, will ensure that adequate
time is provided to interested market makers to determine the extent of
commitment they are prepared to make. Similarly, the process by which a
market maker may challenge an incumbent LMM if it believes that it can
exceed the incumbent with respect to time and/or size at the inside
ensures that the designation of LMMs is not static, but rather may
shift to the market maker that is best able to support the trading of a
particular Qualified Security. The Exchange believes that this process
also has the potential to incentivize incumbent LMMs to increase their
commitment to price and size at the inside in order to prevent
successful challenges. Finally, the Exchange believes that its ability
to reassign Qualified Securities if an LMM is not achieving the
performance standards to which it has committed will contribute to the
ability of the program to fulfill its market quality goals by ensuring
that a Qualified Security does not remain indefinitely assigned to an
LMM that is not achieving the goals of the program.
    The Exchange believes that use of pricing as a means of encouraging
commitments from LMMs is reasonable, not unfairly discriminatory, and
reflective of an equitable allocation of fees because the higher
rebates payable to LMMs are available only to the extent that such
market participants satisfy the market quality requirements of
participation in the program. Specifically:
     Phlx believes that the proposed rebates of $0.0032,
$0.0038, $0.0042, and $0.0048 per share executed to be paid with
respect to displayed orders of LMMs that provide liquidity are
reasonable because they are specifically designed to incentivize member
organizations to engage in quoting activity that will benefit all
market participants by increasing the extent of liquidity provided at
the inside market in Qualified Securities. Moreover, the size of the
proposed rebates is inversely correlated with the trading volume of the
Qualified Security. This approach is reasonable because higher rebates
will be paid with respect to historically less liquid Qualified
Securities so as to increase the liquidity available to support trading
in these securities. This approach is also reasonable because the
aggregate amount of rebates paid with respect to a lower volume
Qualified Security will be low as long as the trading volume of the
security remains low. As the volume increases, the rebate rate will
decrease, thereby insuring that the aggregate rebate paid to an LMM in
a given month for a single Qualified Security will not be excessively
high.
     Phlx further believes that the proposed rebates payable to
LMMs are equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. Although only
one market maker at a time may serve as an LMM for a given Qualified
Security, the selection process for LMMs is open to all member
organizations and is designed to encourage member organizations that
wish to become LMMs to compete to provide more liquidity at or near the
NBBO, thereby increasing the benefits of the program to all other
market participants. Similarly, the opportunity for member
organizations to challenge an incumbent LMM by competing to exceed its
performance, and the ability of the Exchange to reassign Qualified
Securities if an LMM is not consistently achieving performance
standards, provide further assurance that the program is not
unreasonably discriminatory and is consistent with an equitable
allocation of fees. Finally, Phlx believes that the rebates are
equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because they are
available only if, and to the extent that, the selected LMM actually
achieves the performance standards required by the program.
     The proposed rebates payable to a challenger with respect
to the liquidity it provides during the two months of a challenge
period are reasonable because they correspond to the rebates payable to
the incumbent LMM with respect to similar quoting activity. Thus, if a
challenger is successful in its challenge, it is eligible to receive
rebates at the same level as the incumbent for the period of the
challenge, reflecting the fact that it exceeded the incumbent with
respect to performance standards and therefore will receive LMM rebates
going forward. If the challenger is unsuccessful but nevertheless
contributed significantly to market quality during the challenge
period, it is reasonable for it to receive rebates that are higher than
rebates payable to other market participants but nevertheless lower
than the LMM rebates. Moreover, the Exchange believes that this aspect
of the proposal is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees and
not unreasonably discriminatory because it encourages challengers to
attempt to exceed the market quality performance of incumbents, thereby
benefitting all market participants that trade the Qualified Security
in question, and because the higher rebates paid to the challenger are
consistent with its performance at a level above or near the level of
the incumbent.
    The proposal to pay LMM rebates only with respect to securities
listed on exchanges other than NYSE is reasonable because at this time,
Phlx does not propose to designate NYSE-listed securities as Qualified
Securities under the program. This is the case because the program is
initially designed to enhance PSX's competitiveness as a venue for
trading ETPs, and NYSE does not list significant quantities of ETPs at
this time. Phlx further believes that this aspect of the proposal is
consistent with an equitable allocation of fees and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is not unusual for exchange transaction fees
to encourage market participants to trade securities listed on
particular markets, or particular identified securities.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See e.g., http://usequities.nyx.com/markets/nyse-arca-equities/trading-fees (paying higher liquidity provider rebates for
securities listed on exchanges other than NYSE); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 68021 (October 9, 2012), 77 FR 63406 (October 16,
2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-50) (special pricing for identified ticker
symbols); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67986 (October 4,
2012), 77 FR 61803 (October 11, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-104) (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\17\ Phlx 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, Phlx 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,
Phlx believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may
impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In this
instance, Phlx is introducing a new pricing programs [sic] to accompany
changes to PSX's market structure. These changes were necessitated by
the failure of PSX's former price/size execution algorithm to garner
significant market share, and therefore reflect an effort to increase
PSX's competitiveness. If the changes are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that PSX will fail to increase its share of
executions. Conversely, because the proposed changes introduce new
pricing incentive programs and reflect overall reductions in fees, if
they are successful in attracting additional order flow, they will
reduce costs to market participants and possibly encourage competitive
responses from other trading venues. Accordingly, Phlx believes that
the proposed changes will promote greater competition, but will not
impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx further believes that the process for selection of LMMs does
not burden competition. Although only one market maker may serve as the
LMM for a particular Qualified Security at a given time, LMMs will be
assigned on the basis of a competitive bidding process that relies on
objective criteria. The process for challenging incumbent LMMs and
reassigning Qualified Securities for which an LMM is not achieving the
program's requirements will provide further opportunities for
competition among market makers to receive designations under the
program. Moreover, depending on the outcome of the bidding process,
assignments of Qualified Securities may spread across a range of market
makers, so as to allow the financial benefits of the program to be
dispersed among those market makers that are willing and able to
achieve the goals of the program. Thus, the Exchange believes that the
program will enhance competition among market makers.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) by order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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, as amended, 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-2013-52 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-2013-52. 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 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; 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-2013-52 and should be
submitted on or before June 18, 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. 2013-12548 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60945-60946]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24006]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70515; File No. SR-CHX-2013-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Extend a Pilot Program Related to Article 20, Rule 10 Concerning the
Handling of Clearly Erroneous Transactions

September 26, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby
given that, on September 24, 2013 the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``CHX'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II 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

    CHX proposes to extend a pilot program related to Article 20, Rule
10, entitled ``Handling of Clearly Erroneous Transactions.'' The
Exchange also proposes to remove certain references to individual stock
trading pauses contained in Article 20, Rule 10(c)(4). The Exchange has
designated this proposal as non-controversial and provided the
Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the
Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of this proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at (www.chx.com) and in 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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes 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 CHX 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 this filing is to extend the effectiveness of the
Exchange's current rule applicable to Clearly Erroneous Executions and
to remove references to individual stock trading pauses described in
Article 20, Rule 10(c)(4).
    Portions of Article 20, Rule 10, explained in further detail below,
are currently operating as a pilot program set to expire on September
30, 2013.\4\ The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program to April
8, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68802 (February 1,
2013), 78 FR 9092 (Feb. 7, 2013) (SR-CHX-2013-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
changes to Article 20, Rule 10 to provide for uniform treatment: (1) Of
clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving
twenty or more securities; and (2) in the event transactions occur that
result in the issuance of an individual stock trading pause by the
primary listing market and subsequent transactions that occur before
the trading pause is in effect on the Exchange.\5\ The Exchange also
adopted additional changes to Article 20, Rule 10 that reduced the
ability of the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set
forth in Article 20, Rule 10,\6\ and in 2013, adopted a provision
designed to address the operation of the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act
(the ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or the ``Plan'').\7\ The Exchange
believes the benefits to market participants from the more objective
clearly erroneous executions rule should continue on a pilot basis
through April 8, 2014, which is one year following the commencement of
operations of the Plan. The Exchange believes that continuing the pilot
during this time will protect against any unanticipated consequences.
Thus, the Exchange believes that the protections of the Clearly
Erroneous Rule should continue while the industry gains further
experience operating the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62886 (September 10,
2010), 75 FR 56613 (September 16, 2010) (SR-CHX-2010-13).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68802 (February 1,
2013), 78 FR 9092 (Feb. 7, 2013) (SR-CHX-2013-04); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6,
2012) (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down Release''); see also CHX Article
20, Rule 10(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate all references in Article
20, Rule 10 to individual stock trading pauses issued by a primary
listing market. Specifically, Article 20, Rule 10(c)(4) provides
specific rules to follow with respect to review of an execution as
potentially clearly erroneous when there was an individual stock
trading pause issued for that security and the security is included in
the S&P 500[supreg] Index, the Russell 1000[supreg] Index, or a pilot
list of Exchange Traded Products (``Subject Securities''). The stock
trading pauses described in Article 20, Rule 10(c)(4) are being phased
out as securities become subject to the Plan pursuant to a phased
implementation schedule. The Plan is already operational with respect
to all Subject Securities, and thus, the Exchange believes that all
references to individual stock trading pauses should be removed,
including all cross-references to Article 20, Rule 10(c)(4) contained
in other portions of Article 20, Rule 10.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that certain Exchange Traded Products
(``ETPs'') are not yet subject to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan.
Because such ETPs are not on the pilot list of securities, such ETPs
are not subject to Article 20, Rule 10(c)(4). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 65115 (August 11, 2011), 76 FR 51447
(August 18, 2011) (SR-CHX-2011-22) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness to limit application of Article 20, Rule 10(c)(4) to
the Subject Securities). Accordingly, the proposed rule change does
not change the status quo with respect to such ETPs. As amended, all
securities, including ETPs not subject to the Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan, will continue to be subject to Article 20, Rule 10(c)(1)
through (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules

and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of
the Act.\9\ In particular, the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ because it would promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism
of, a free and open market and a national market system. The Exchange
believes that the pilot program promotes just and equitable principles
of trade in that it promotes transparency and uniformity across markets
concerning review of transactions as clearly erroneous. More
specifically, the Exchange believes that the extension of the pilot
would help assure that the determination of whether a clearly erroneous
transaction has occurred will be based on clear and objective criteria,
and that the resolution of the incident will occur promptly through a
transparent process. The proposed rule change would also help assure
consistent results in handling erroneous transactions across the U.S.
markets, thus furthering fair and orderly markets, the protection of
investors and the public interest. Although the Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan will become fully operational during the same time period as the
proposed extended pilot, the Exchange believes that maintaining the
pilot will help to protect against unanticipated consequences. To that
end, the extension will allow the Exchange to determine whether Article
20, Rule 10 is necessary once the Plan is fully operational and, if so,
whether improvements can be made. Finally, the elimination of
references to individual stock trading pauses will help to avoid
confusion amongst market participants, which is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest and therefore
consistent with the Act. As described above, individual stock trading
pauses have been replaced by the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan with respect
to all Subject Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 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
implicates any competitive issues. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'')
and other national securities exchanges are also filing similar
proposals, and thus, that the proposal will help to ensure consistency
across market centers.

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

    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 for 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 \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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 asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
as it will allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding investor confusion that could result from a temporary
interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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-CHX-2013-17 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-CHX-2013-17. 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 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; 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-CHX-2013-17 and should be
submitted on or before October 23, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24006 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8385]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2009-0001]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-NEW; FEMA Preparedness Grants:
Trucking Security Grant Program (TSP)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; new information
collection; OMB No. 1660-NEW; FEMA Form 089-7, TSP Investment
Justification Template.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Office
of Records Management, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-
3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address FEMA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Trucking Security Program (TSP).
The title has changed since publication of the 60-day Federal Register
Notice at 74 FR 48091, Sept. 21, 2009.
    Type of Information Collection: New information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-NEW. The OMB Number has changed since publication
of the 60-day Federal Register Notice at 74 FR 48091, Sept. 21, 2009.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 089-7, TSP Investment
Justification Template.
    Abstract: FEMA uses the information to evaluate applicants'
familiarity with national preparedness architecture and identify how
elements of this architecture have been incorporated into regional/
State/local planning, operations, and investments. The TSP Investment
Justification Template provides narrative detail on proposed
investments. This document must demonstrate how proposed projects
address gaps and deficiencies in current programs and capabilities and
the ability to provide enhancements consistent with the purpose of the
program and guidance provided by FEMA.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 25.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: 5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 125 hours.
    Estimated Cost: There are no annual reporting or recordkeeping
costs associated with this collection.

Larry Gray,
Director, Office of Records Management, Office of Management, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-3600 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-78-P