[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21452-21455]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08331]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69311; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Standard
Options Transaction Fees

April 4, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on March 27, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Standard Options Transaction Fees.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the transaction charges for
executing standard options trades on NYSE Arca. The Exchange proposes
to raise the Take Liquidity Rate in both Penny Pilot Issues and non-
Penny Pilot issues, while reducing the Post Liquidity credit for NYSE
Arca Market Makers in non-Penny Pilot issues. The Exchange also
proposes to modify the Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and
Qualifications to provide additional tiers to incent an increased level
of Customer activity, and create new Tiers for a similar increase in
Customer activity by providing higher Post Liquidity credits in non-
Penny Pilot issues.
    First, the Exchange proposes to no longer differentiate the Take
Liquidity rate by contra party, so that a participant will have a
single fee for Taking Liquidity in Penny Pilot issues. The Exchange
proposes to raise the Take Liquidity rate for all non-Customers trading
in Penny Pilot issues to $0.47 per contract.
    Similarly, the Exchange proposes raising the Take Liquidity fee for
Electronic Executions in non-Penny Pilot issues for all participants,
with similar increases but differentiated fees by participant type. The
Take Liquidity fee for LMMs trading in non-Penny Pilot issues will be
increased from $0.78 to

$0.84. The Take Liquidity fee for all NYSE Arca Market Makers will also
increase to $0.84, from the current $0.80. The Take Liquidity fee for
Firm and Broker Dealer transactions in non-Penny Pilot issues will
increase from $0.85 to $0.87, while the Take Liquidity fee in non-Penny
Pilot issues for Customers will increase from $0.79 to $0.82.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the Post Liquidity rate for NYSE
Arca Market Makers in non-Penny Pilot issues by reducing it to a credit
of $0.05.
    The increases in various Take Liquidity rates and the reduction of
the Post Liquidity credit for NYSE Arca Market Makers in non-Penny
Pilot issues is to provide sufficient funding for various Customer Post
Liquidity credits.
    NYSE Arca proposes to modify the Customer Monthly Posting Credit
Tiers and Qualifications for Executions in Penny Pilot Issues. First,
the Exchange proposes to eliminate the first and third qualification
requirements for Tier 4. Secondly, the Exchange proposes to reduce the
level of activity needed to meet the current second qualification for
Tier 4 from 0.95% to 0.85% of Total Industry Customer equity and ETF
option Average Daily Volume (ADV) from Posted Orders in Penny Pilot
Issues, all account types. Thirdly, the Exchange proposes to add Tier 5
with a credit of $0.45 to be applied to posted electronic Customer
executions in Penny Pilot issues. To earn the new Tier 5 credit, a firm
must qualify by providing ``At least 0.50% of Total Industry Customer
equity and ETF option ADV from Customer Posted Orders in both Penny
Pilot and non-Penny Pilot Issues, plus executed ADV of Retail Orders of
0.3% of U.S. Equity Market Share Posted and Executed on NYSE Arca
Equity Market''. The Exchange also proposes an additional Tier, Tier 6,
with a qualification of ``At least 0.95% of Total Industry Customer
equity and ETF option ADV from Customer Posted Orders in both Penny
Pilot and non-Penny Pilot Issues'', with a credit for meeting the
qualification of $0.47 per contract applied to posted electronic
executions in Penny Pilot issues.
    The Exchange also proposes the creation of Customer Posting Credit
Tiers in Non-Penny Pilot Issues with two Tiers to receive a higher
credit to be applied to posted electronic Customer executions in non-
Penny Pilot issues. To qualify for the first tier, Tier A, an Order
Flow Provider would need to provide ``At least 0.50% of Total Industry
Customer equity and ETF option ADV from Customer Posted Orders in both
Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Issues Plus executed ADV of Retail
Orders of 0.3% ADV of U.S. Equity Market Share Posted and Executed on
NYSE Arca Equity Market'', the same criterion as Tier 5 in the Customer
Posted Liquidity Credits for Penny Pilot issues. Meeting the
qualifications for Tier A will provide a credit applied to posted
electronic Customer executions in non-Penny Pilot issues of $0.80.
    The qualification basis for Tier B would be the same as for the new
Tier 6 in the Customer Tiers for Posting Credits in Penny Pilot Issues:
at least 0.95% of Total Industry Customer equity and ETF option ADV
from Customer posted orders in both Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot
issues. Order Flow Provider (``OFP'') firms that meet the qualification
would, in addition to the higher tier in Penny Pilot issues, also
receive a credit of $0.81 applied to posted electronic executions in
non-Penny Pilot names.
    The changes to various Customer Post Liquidity credit tiers, and
the creation of the new Customer Posting Credit Tiers in Non-Penny
Pilot Issues, are to encourage additional Customer order flow to be
sent to the Exchange.
    NYSE Arca also proposes additional language in endnote 8, to define
Retail Orders. A Retail Order must qualify for the Retail Order Tier
set forth in the Schedule of Fees and Charges for NYSE Arca Equities,
Inc.
    NYSE Arca intends for the new fees to be in effect on April 1,
2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposal to raise certain Take Liquidity fees in Penny
Pilot issues is reasonable in that all of the non-Customer rates are
being raised to a rate that is already applied to certain transactions
in Penny Pilot issues. While the rate for Customers will remain at a
slightly lower level, this is not unfairly discriminatory, as non-
Customers want to attract Customer order flow, and Customers have other
costs, such as commissions, which are not charged to non-Customers.
    The Exchange proposal to raise the Take Liquidity fees in non-Penny
Pilot names is reasonable because they are within the established range
of similar fees charged by other markets. One exchange charges a Take
Liquidity fee of as much as $0.89 per contract. In addition, the
increase in Take Liquidity fees is also non- discriminatory because the
Exchange is making a similar increase for all participant types. While
the fees are not identical, they are equitable in that the increases
are by similar amounts, and the resultant fees are differentiated by
the overall costs and obligations of the different participants. The
Exchange will now be charging the same Take Liquidity rate to both
Market Makers and LMMs. While the rate for Firms and Broker Dealers is
slightly higher, it is not unreasonably discriminatory because Market
Makers have higher fees for Trading Permits and have market maker
obligations which require them to pay for equipment and connectivity.
Customers will pay a slightly lower Take Liquidity rate because
Customers have other costs not borne by non-Customers, and a lower fee
for Customers is not discriminatory because non-Customers wish to have
Customer orders attracted to the Exchange by having lower fees.
    The Exchange proposal to reduce the Post Liquidity credit in non-
Penny Pilot issues for NYSE Market Makers is reasonable in that the
range of fees for Market Maker transactions in non-Penny Pilot issues
varies across all market centers from a credit of $0.70 to a fee of
$0.85. It is not unfairly discriminatory as different market
participants have different costs and obligations. It is not unfairly
discriminatory to have a higher Post Liquidity credit for Lead Market
Makers as compared to other NYSE Arca Market Makers because LMMs have a
higher quoting obligation and higher costs and there are barriers to
entry and exit of appointment as an LMM that are not imposed on other
Market Makers.
    The NYSE Arca proposal to modify the Customer Monthly Posting
Credit Tiers and Qualifications in Penny Pilot issues is reasonable in
that it sets credits within the range of credits offered for similar
Customer activity on other markets, which range as high as $0.48. It is
not unreasonably discriminatory to set credit tiers to incent higher
amounts of Customer volume, as non-Customers wish to have Customer
orders attracted to the Exchange by having more attractive fees. The
differing Credit Tiers are not unreasonably discriminatory amongst
various OFPs because, while

firms may be allowed to meet some tiers with a variety of sources, most
of the incentive levels can still be met by an Order Flow Provider
whose business consists only of Customer order flow. And while the new
Tier 5 is available for Order Flow Firms who also have an Equity
Trading Permit (``ETP''), those firms who only have an Options Trading
Permit may still achieve the highest tier and greatest Customer Posting
Credit by meeting a reasonable level of market share and including all
options volume, from both Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot issues, to
meet that market share level.
    Additionally, the NYSE Arca creation of new Customer Posting Credit
Tiers in non-Penny Pilot issues is reasonable and non-discriminatory in
that it extends upon the common and reasonable concept of rewarding
higher Customer volume with higher Post Liquidity credits by applying
it to non-Penny Pilot issues. As stated before, it is not unreasonably
discriminatory to set credit tiers to incent higher amounts of Customer
volume, as non-Customers wish to have Customer orders attracted to the
Exchange by having more attractive fees. As with Customer Tier 6 in the
Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and Qualifications in Penny Pilot
issues, those firms who only have an Options Trading Permit may still
achieve Tier B and the greatest Customer Posting Credit by meeting a
reasonable level of market share and including all options volume, from
both Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot issues, to meet that market share
level.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the addition of the
proposed language in end note 8 to define Retail Orders, which refers
to qualification for the Retail Order Tier set forth in the Schedule of
Fees and Charges for NYSE Arca Equities, Inc., will provide clarifying
language to investors regarding calculation of ADV executed on NYSE
Arca Equity Market, for purposes of the proposed charges.

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.
    The Exchange believes that the new Take Liquidity rates in Penny
Pilot issues does not impose a burden on competition because it sets
the same rate for all non-Customer participants, regardless of contra
party.
    Similarly, by raising all of the Take Liquidity rates for non-Penny
Pilot issues by similar amounts, the new Take Liquidity fees for non-
Penny Pilot issues do not impose a burden on competition because all
participants are affected to the same extent.
    In addition, the adjustment of the NYSE Arca Market Maker Post
Liquidity rate in non-Penny Pilot issues reduces the burden on
competition because it aligns the NYSE Market Maker rate to an
equitable balance that reflects both the higher costs of being a Lead
Market Maker and the lower overall costs of other non-Customers.
    The Exchange notes that the modifications to the Customer Monthly
Credit Tiers and Qualifications reduces the burden on competition by
providing additional incentives for Customers to bring orders to the
Exchange. This incents competition because non-Customers wish to have
Customer orders attracted to the Exchange by having attractive fees and
incentives.
    Similarly, the creation of new Customer Posting Credit Tiers for
higher Customer credits in non-Penny Pilot issues does not impose a
burden on competition but incents additional order flow to come to NYSE
Arca and will increase competition amongst non-Customers to trade
against Customer orders.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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 rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \7\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \8\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEArca-2013-36 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-NYSEArca-2013-36. 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-NYSEArca-2013-36 and should
be submitted on or before May 1, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08331 Filed 4-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12163-12165]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77281; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fees
for NYSE Arca Proprietary Market Data as They Apply to Federal Agency
Customers

March 3, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)`` \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is
hereby given that, on February 26, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the
``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Arca proprietary
market data as they apply to Federal agency customers. The proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Proprietary
Market Data Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule''), to provide that market
data fees do not apply to any Federal agency for their use of NYSE Arca
real-time proprietary market data products. The term ``Federal agency''
as used in the Fee Schedule would include all Federal agencies subject
to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR),\4\ as well as any Federal
agency not subject to FAR that has promulgated its own procurement
rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FAR is the principal set of rules governing the process by
which the U.S. federal government purchases goods and services.
    \5\ See 48 CFR 2.101. FAR defines ``Federal agency'' as ``any
executive agency or any independent establishment in the legislative
or judicial branch of the Government (except the Senate, the House
of Representatives, the Architect of the Capitol, and any activities
under the Architect's direction).'' ``Executive agency'' is defined
as ``an executive department, a military department, or any
independent establishment within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 101, 102,
and 104(1), respectively, and any wholly owned Government
corporation within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. 9101.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to specify that access fees, professional
user fees and non-display fees do not apply to Federal agencies for
those products to which those fees apply.\6\ The proposal is designed
to allow the Exchange to provide Federal agencies with NYSE Arca real-
time proprietary market data products at no cost in support of Federal
agencies' regulatory responsibilities. With the adoption of the
proposed fee waiver, the Exchange is not waiving any of its contractual
rights and all Federal agencies that subscribe to NYSE Arca real-time
proprietary market data products will be required to execute the
appropriate subscriber agreement, which includes, among other things,
provisions against the redistribution of data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These products are currently NYSE Arca Integrated Feed, NYSE
ArcaBook, NYSE Arca BBO, NYSE Arca Trades and NYSE Arca Order
Imbalances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and
recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to eliminate the access fees,
display fees for professional users, and non-display fees associated
with its proprietary market data products for customers that are
Federal agencies is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is designed to facilitate federal government
regulation without giving an undue advantage to one set of commercial
users over another. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to
assess no fees to Federal agencies that subscribe to the Exchange's
proprietary market data products because Federal agencies do not use
the Exchange's proprietary market data for commercial gain, but only
for regulatory purposes.

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. In setting the proposed
fees, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for
proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The
Federal agencies that will benefit from the proposed rule change,
however, do not use the Exchange's proprietary market data products for
commercial purposes and do not compete with commercial users of the
data. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors
and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish fair,
reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable
allocation of fees among all users.

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 rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \10\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEArca-2016-37 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-37. 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-NYSEArca-2016-37 and should
be submitted on or before March 29, 2016.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05121 Filed 3-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55690-55692]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19590]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0595]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ironman Michigan, Frankfort Harbor, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of Betsie Lake in Frankfort, MI. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters
during the swim portion of an Ironman event on September 11, 2022. This
rulemaking would restrict usage by persons and vessels within the
safety zone. At no time during the effective period may vessels transit
the waters of Betsie Lake in the vicinity of a triangular shaped race
course enclosed by the following three coordinates: 44[deg]37.80' N, -
086[deg]13.91' W to 44[deg]37.81' N, -086[deg]14.22' W to 44[deg]37.58'
N, -086[deg]13.75' W, then back to the starting point. The race course
will be marked by buoys. These restrictions apply to all perons and
vessels during the effective period unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 11, 2022, from 6 a.m.
through 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0595 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Petty Officer Jeromy Sherrill,
Sector Lake Michigan Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On June 23, 2022, the Coast Guard was notified by the event sponsor
of its intent to host Ironman Michigan in Frankfort, MI on September
11, 2022 from 8 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.. The swim will begin near Frankfort
Municipal Marina in Betsie Lake. The race course will be triangular
shaped area enclosed by the following coordinates: 44[deg]37.80' N, -
086[deg]13.91' W to 44[deg]37.81' N, -086[deg]14.22' W to 44[deg]37.58'
N, -086[deg]13.75' W, then back to the starting point. The race course
will be marked by buoys. In response, on July 18, 2022, the Coast Guard
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone;
Ironman Michigan, Frankfort Harbor, MI (87 FR 42985). There we stated
why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory
action. During the comment period that ended August 18, 2022, we
received 0 comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Lake
Michigan (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with
the Michigan Ironman event would be a safety concern for anyone within
the safety zone that is not participating in the event. The purpose of
this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in
the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published July
18, 2022. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a safety zone from 6 a.m. through 12 a.m. on
September 11, 2022. The safety zone will cover all waters of Betsie
Lake in the vicinity of a triangular shaped race course near Frankfort
Municipal Marina in Frankfort, MI. The duration of the zone is intended
to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before,
during, and after the triathlon event. No vessels or person would be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the
characteristics of the safety zone. The safety zone created by this
proposed rule will relatively small and is designed to minimize its
impact on navigable waters. This proposed rule will prohibit entry into
certain navigable waters of Betsie Lake in Frankfort, MI, and it is not
anticipated to exceed 6 hours in duration. Thus, restrictions on vessel
movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal.
Moreover, under certain conditions vessels may still transit through
the safety zone when permitted by the COTP Lake Michigan.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received 00 comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting 6 hours that would prohibit entry within a
relatively small portion of Betsie Lake. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0595 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0595  Safety Zone; Ironman Michigan, Frankfort, MI.

    (a) Location. All waters of Betsie Lake in the vicinity of a
triangular shaped race course enclosed by the following three
coordinates: 44[deg]37.80' N, -086[deg]13.91' W to 44[deg]37.81' N, -
086[deg]14.22' W to 44[deg]37.58' N, -086[deg]13.75' W, then back to
the starting point.
    (b) Enforcement period. The safety zone described in paragraph (a)
would be effective on September 11, 2022 from 6 a.m. through 12 p.m.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan (COTP) or a designated representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) The ``designated representative'' of the COTP is any Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated
by the COTP to act on his or her behalf.
    (4) Persons and vessel operators desiring to enter or operate
within the safety zone during the marine event must contact the COTP or
an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or
an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel
operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must
comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or an on-scene
representative.

    Dated: August 30, 2022.
Joseph B. Parker,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2022-19590 Filed 9-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 155 (Wednesday, August 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48413-48415]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19782]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0049]

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 23 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 were granted July 7, 2015. The exemptions expire
on July 7, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<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. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On June 3, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (80 FR 31636). That notice listed 23 applicants' case histories.
The 23 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 23 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. 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 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 23
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,

amblyopia strabismus, retinal detachment, enucleation, retinal scar,
prosthetic eye, angle closure, aphakia, corneal scarring, and complete
loss of vision. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. Seventeen of the applicants were either born with their
vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The six individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a range of two to 25 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 23 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 in careers ranging from two to 53
years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes,
and no drivers 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 3, 2015
notice (80 FR 31636).

IV. 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.
    FMCSA believes it 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 23 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes, and no drivers
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 23 applicants listed in the notice of June 3,
2015 (80 FR 31636).
    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 23 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.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 23 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Michael J. Altobelli (CT)
Johnny A. Bingham (NC)
Robert A. Buckley (IN)
Allen E. Clark (NY)
Don A. Clymer (PA)
Bryan K. Dalton (NC)
Joseph B. Fry (KS)
David B. Ginther (PA)
Dominic F. Giordano (CT)
Thomas E. Groves (WV)
Jose J. Guzman-Olguin (IL)
Stephen T. Hines (NJ)
James J. Keranen (MI)
Wesley S. Kilpatrick (OK)
Herbert S. Lear (PA)
Christopher V. May (GA)
Nathan C. Nissen (IA)
Jeffery Reed (KY)
Gregory S. Richter, Sr. (PA)
David J. Rotenberger (ND)
George Tomecek, Jr. (PA)
Richard G. Vaughn (NC)
Paul C. Weiss (PA)

    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 6, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-19782 Filed 8-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54748-54749]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23754]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2017-0200; FRL-9984-86-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Rubber Tire Manufacturing
(Reinstatement)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Rubber Tire
Manufacturing (EPA ICR No. 1982.02), to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Public comments were requested previously, via the
Federal Register, on June 29, 2017 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 30,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2017-0200, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to

[email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
[email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Rubber Tire Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXXX) apply to existing and new facilities that are involved in
rubber processing, tire production, tire cord production, and puncture
sealant application. New facilities include those that commenced
construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal. In general,
all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests,
and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected
facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXXX.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Rubber tire manufacturers.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXXX).
    Estimated number of respondents: 23 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and
annually.
    Total estimated burden: 6,520 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $910,000 (per year), which includes $0
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: This ICR reflects the requirements for
on-going compliance (existing facilities) with the rule. The number of
sources presented in this ICR reflects current data obtained from
industry, including information on the use of compliance alternatives
used by the affected facilities. Based on consultations with the trade
group, no facilities are using control devices to comply with the
requirements.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-23754 Filed 10-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P