[Federal Register: December 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 233)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63971-63973]
[DOCID:fr07de09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1167; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-16]

Amendment of the South Florida Low Offshore Airspace Area;
Florida

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action lowers the altitude floor within a part of the
South Florida Low Offshore Airspace Area. This action provides
additional controlled airspace to enable air traffic control (ATC) to
more efficiently handle arriving instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft
at various coastal airports bordering along the South Florida Low
Offshore Airspace Area.

DATES: Effective Dates: 0901 UTC, February 11, 2010. The Director of
the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action
under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9
and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules
Group,

Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Wednesday January 21, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal
Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the South Florida Low
Offshore Airspace Area (74 FR 3466). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal. One comment was received. The commenter concurred with
the proposal.
    Currently, ATC cannot vector arriving aircraft below 2,700 feet
mean sea level (MSL) while operating within the South Florida Low
Offshore Airspace Area, limiting system efficiency and increasing
operational complexity. Lowering the floor of the South Florida Low
Offshore Airspace Area to 1,300 feet MSL provides additional controlled
airspace allowing ATC to use lower altitudes to vector arriving IFR
aircraft at various coastal airports along the southeastern United
States (U.S.) and the west coast of Florida. Airports that will benefit
from this change include, but are not necessarily limited to, those
that receive approach control service Myrtle Beach, SC; Airport Traffic
Control Tower/Terminal Radar Approach Control (ATCT/TRACON), Fort
Lauderdale, FL; ATCT, Miami, FL; ATCT/TRACON and Fort Myers
International, FL, ATCT/TRACON. The change will increase National
Airspace System (NAS) efficiency and reduce operational complexity at
the terminal areas.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to lower the airspace floor from
2,700 feet MSL to 1,300 feet MSL throughout the entire South Florida
Low Offshore Airspace Area. Following consultations with the Department
of Defense (DOD) and a review of ATC requirements, the FAA determined
that a 1,300 foot MSL floor was only needed within an 8 nautical mile
(NM) wide segment of airspace along the boundary of the South Florida
Low Offshore Airspace Area. Based on this review, the airspace
extending upward from 1,300 feet MSL will apply only to that portion of
the South Florida Low Offshore Airspace Area that lies between a line
drawn 12 miles from and parallel to the U.S. shoreline and a line drawn
20 miles from and parallel to the U.S. shoreline. To clarify the
airspace description in the vicinity of the Florida Keys, the new
1,300-foot MSL floor segment between 12 miles and 20 miles from the
shoreline extends around the Marquesas Keys, but does not extend out
to, or include the airspace around, the Dry Tortugas Islands. The floor
in the remainder of the South Florida Low Offshore Airspace Area,
outward from 20 NM from the shoreline, will continue to extend upward
from 2,700 feet MSL.
    This action does not change the status of any warning areas
contained within the South Florida Low Offshore Airspace Area or affect
DOD operations conducted therein. As with all warning areas, a letter
of agreement between the controlling and using agencies is executed to
define the conditions and procedures under which the controlling agency
may authorize nonparticipating aircraft to transit the warning area.
    With the exception of the change described above, and editorial
changes, this amendment is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.
    Offshore Airspace Areas are published in paragraph 6007 of FAA
Order 7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Offshore
Airspace Area listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by lowering the floor in a portion of the South Florida Low
Offshore Airspace Area from 2,700 feet MSL to 1,300 feet MSL. The
amendment applies to that segment of the South Florida Low that lies
between a line drawn 12 miles from and parallel to the U.S. shoreline
and a line drawn 20 miles from and parallel to the U.S. shoreline. The
change provides additional controlled airspace allowing ATC to use
lower altitudes to vecotor arriving IFR aircraft at various coastal
airports along the boundary of the South Florida Low Offshore Airspace
Area, increasing NAS efficiency and reducing operational complexity.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is with the scope of that authority as
it provides additional controlled airspace for IFR aircraft operations
at airports along the coast of the southeastern U.S.

ICAO Considerations

    As part of this action relates to navigable airspace outside the
United States, this notice is submitted in accordance with the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) International
Standards and Recommended Practices.
    The application of International Standards and Recommended
Practices by the FAA, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM,
Airspace & Rules, in areas outside the United States domestic airspace,
is governed by the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
Specifically, the FAA is governed by Article 12 and Annex 11, which
pertain to the establishment of necessary air navigational facilities
and services to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of
civil air traffic. The purpose of Article 12 and Annex 11 is to ensure
that civil aircraft operations on international air routes are
performed under uniform conditions.
    The International Standards and Recommended Practices in Annex 11
apply to airspace under the jurisdiction of a contracting state,
derived from ICAO. Annex 11 provisions apply when air traffic services
are provided and a contracting state accepts the responsibility of
providing air traffic services over high seas or in airspace of
undetermined sovereignty.
    A contracting state accepting this responsibility may apply the
International Standards and Recommended Practices that are consistent
with standards and practices utilized in its domestic jurisdiction.
    In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, state-owned
aircraft are

exempt from the Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 11. The
United States is a contracting state to the Convention. Article 3(d) of
the Convention provides that participating state aircraft will be
operated in international airspace with due regard for the safety of
civil aircraft. Since this action involves the designation of navigable
airspace outside the United States, it has been reviewed by the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense in accordance with the
provisions of Executive Order 10854.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9T,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6007 Offshore Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

South Florida Low, FL [Amended]

    That airspace extending upward from 2,700 feet MSL bounded on
the west by the Houston Oceanic CTA/FIR; bounded on the north from
west to east by the Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center
boundary, a line 12 miles from and parallel to the U.S. shoreline
and lat. 34[deg]00'00'' N., bounded on the east by the New York
Oceanic CTA/FIR and the San Juan Oceanic CTA/FIR; bounded on the
south from east to west by the Santo Domingo FIR, the Port-Au-Prince
CTA/FIR and the Havana CTA/FIR; excluding the Grand Bahama TCA and
the Nassau TCA; and that airspace extending upward from 1,300 feet
MSL within the portion of the South Florida Low that lies between a
line drawn 12 miles from and parallel to the U.S. shoreline and a
line drawn 20 miles from and parallel to the U.S. shoreline, along
the full length of the South Florida Low and extending around the
Marquesas Keys, but excluding the Dry Tortugas Islands.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 23, 2009.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. E9-28899 Filed 12-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48431-48433]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19221]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9392-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection of
Several Currently Approved Collections; Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit two Information
Collection Requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The first ICR, titled: ``Reporting and Recordkeeping for
Asbestos Abatement Worker Protection'' and identified by EPA ICR No.
1246.12 and OMB Control No. 2070-0072, represents the renewal of an
existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2014. The second
ICR, titled: ``Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools Rule and
Revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan Rule'' and identified by EPA
ICR No. 1365.10 and OMB Control No. 2070-0091, represents the renewal
of an existing ICR that also is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2014.
Before submitting the ICRs to OMB for review and approval, EPA is
soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collections that are summarized in this document. The ICRs and
accompanying materials are available in the docket for public review
and comment in the relevant dockets identified in this document for the
ICR.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number for the corresponding ICR as identified in
this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. ATTN:
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0915. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID number for the
corresponding ICR as identified in this document. EPA's policy is that
all comments received will be included in the docket without change and
may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected
through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Robert Courtnage, National Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What Do I Need to Know About PRA?

    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

III. Which ICRs Are Being Renewed?

    EPA is planning to submit two currently approved ICRs to OMB for
review and approval under PRA. In addition to specifically identifying
the ICRs by title and corresponding ICR, OMB and docket ID numbers,
this unit provides a brief summary of the information collection
activity and the Agency's estimated burden. The Supporting Statement
for each ICR, a copy of which is available in the corresponding docket,
provides a more detailed explanation.

A. Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0915

    Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping for Asbestos Abatement Worker
Protection.
    ICR number: 1246.12.
    OMB control number: 2070-0072.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on May 31,
2014.
    Abstract: EPA's asbestos worker protection rule is designed to
provide occupational exposure protection to state and local government
employees who are engaged in asbestos abatement activities in states
that do not have state plans approved by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA). The rule provides protection for public
employees not covered by the OSHA standard from the adverse health
effects associated with occupational exposure to asbestos.
Specifically, the rule requires state and local governments to monitor
employee exposure to asbestos, take action to reduce exposure to
asbestos, monitor employee health and train employees about asbestos
hazards.
    The rule includes a number of information reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. State and local government agencies are
required to provide employees with information about exposures to
asbestos and the associated health effects. The rule also requires
state and local governments to notify EPA before commencing any
asbestos abatement project. State and local governments must maintain
medical surveillance and monitoring records and training records on
their employees, must establish a set of written procedures for
respirator programs, and must maintain procedures and records of
respirator fit tests. EPA will use the information to monitor
compliance with the asbestos worker protection rule. This request
addresses these reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR part 763, subpart G). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice
as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim
only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures
in 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.32
hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are state and local government employers in 25 states, the
District of Columbia, and certain U.S. Territories that have employees
engaged in asbestos-related construction, custodial and brake and
clutch repair activities without OSHA-approved state plans.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 22,488.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
51.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 363,523 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $14,548,910. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $ 14,548,910 and an estimated cost of $0 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

B. Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0916

    Title: Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools Rule and Revised
Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan Rule.
    ICR number: 1365.10.
    OMB control number: 2070-0091.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on May 31,
2014.
    Abstract: The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)
requires local education agencies (LEAs) to conduct inspections,
develop management plans, and design or conduct response actions with
respect to the presence of asbestos-containing materials in school
buildings. AHERA also requires states to develop model accreditation
plans for persons who perform asbestos inspections, develop management
control plans, and design or conduct response actions. This information
collection addresses the burden associated with recordkeeping
requirements imposed on LEAs by the asbestos in schools rule, and
reporting and recordkeeping requirements imposed on states and training
providers related to the model accreditation plan rule.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR part 763, subpart E). Respondents may claim all or part of a
document confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by
a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in
accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for

this collection of information is estimated to range between 5.5 hours
and 140 hours per response, depending upon the nature of the
respondent. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are local education agencies (LEAs, e.g., elementary or
secondary public school districts or a private school or school
system); asbestos training providers to schools and educational
systems; state education departments or commissions; or state public
health departments or commissions.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 133,507.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 2,487,439 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $91,829,253. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $9.

IV. Are There Changes in the Estimates from the Last Approvals?

    ICR number: 1246.12. There is no change in the number of hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in
the ICRs currently approved by OMB.
    ICR number: 1365.10. There is a decrease of 105,449 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the
ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects EPA's reduced
estimate of the number of schools containing friable asbestos-
containing materials. This change is an adjustment.

V. What is the Next Step in the Process for these ICRs?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICRs as
appropriate. The final ICR packages will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICRs to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about the
ICRs or the approval process, please contact the technical person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 31, 2013.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2013-19221 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31006-31009]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83525; File No. SR-BOX-2018-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BOX Rule 7300 (Preferenced
Orders) To Provide an Additional Allocation Preference to Preferred
Market Makers

June 26, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 13, 2018, BOX Options Exchange LLC (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 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 7300 (Preferenced Orders)
to provide an additional allocation preference to Preferred Market
Makers. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at http://boxoptions.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 7300 (Preferenced Orders)
to provide an additional allocation preference to Preferred Market
Makers. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to provide Preferred
Market Makers with a small size order allocation preference.
Background
    The Exchange has rules to allow BOX Options Participants
(``Participants'') to submit orders for which a Market Maker is
designated to receive an allocation preference on the Exchange
(``Preferenced Orders'').\3\ The rules provide for the enhanced
allocation to the Preferred Market Maker \4\ only when the Preferred
Market Maker is quoting at NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 7300.
    \4\ The term ``Preferred Market Maker'' means a Market Maker
designated as such by a Participant with respect to an order
submitted by such Participant to BOX. See Rule 7300(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Preferenced Order is any order submitted by a Participant to the
Exchange for which a Preferred Market Maker is designated to receive
execution priority, with respect to a portion of the Preferenced Order,
upon meeting certain qualifications.\5\ Preferenced Orders are
submitted by a Participant by designating an order as such and
identifying a Preferred Market Maker when entering the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 7300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for a Preferred Market Maker to be eligible to receive
Preferenced Orders, they must maintain heightened quoting activity.
Specifically, a Preferred Market Maker must maintain a continuous two-
sided market, throughout the trading day, in 99% of the non-adjusted
option series of each class for which it accepts Preferenced Orders,
for 90% of the time the Exchange is open for trading in each such
option class.\6\ A Preferred Market Maker is not required to quote in
intra-day add-on series or series that have a time to expiration of
nine months or more in the classes for which it receives Preferenced
Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 7300(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Size Orders
    The Exchange is now proposing to amend Rule 7300 to provide an
additional allocation preference to Preferred Market Makers.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing that small size Preferenced
Orders will be allocated in full to the Preferred Market Maker, subject
to certain conditions described below.\7\ Small size orders are defined
as five (5) or fewer contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Rule 7300(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for the Preferred Market Makers to be allocated the small
size order, they must be quoting at the NBBO when they receive the
Preferenced Order. As is the case with the current allocation of
Preferenced Orders, all orders from the account of Public Customers, if
any, will continue to be allocated for execution against the
Preferenced Order first. The Preferred Market Maker will only receive
the small size order allocation if there are contracts remaining after
any Public Customer orders receive an allocation against the
Preferenced Order. A Preferred Market Maker may only be allocated up to
the size of their quote.
    The Exchange will monitor the frequency in which Preferred Market
Makers receive the small size order allocation. Specifically, the
Exchange will review the proposed provision quarterly and will maintain
the small order size at a level that will not allow small size orders
executed by Preferred Market Makers to account for more than 40% of the
volume executed on the Exchange.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposal raises any new or novel
issues. Currently, the vast majority of options exchanges provide a
small lot allocation preference to specialists,\8\ with the

majority of those exchanges restricting the number of specialists to
one per class. The Exchange's proposal differs in that the Exchange is
expanding the availability of the small lot allocation preference to
all eligible Preferred Market Makers. The Exchange believes that
providing this benefit to multiple Preferred Market Makers will be
beneficial to the Exchange and the market by providing an incentive for
vigorous quoting by multiple market makers per class since a Preferred
Market Maker must be quoting at NBBO in order to receive the small lot
allocation preference. Additionally, as explained above, Preferred
Market Makers are responsible for heightened quoting obligations that
must be met in order for them to receive Preferenced Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Cboe EDGX Rule 21.8(g)(2) provides a small lot allocation
preference to Primary Market Makers, Nasdaq ISE Rule 713.01(c)
provides a small lot allocation preference for Primary Market
Makers, NYSE American Rule 964.2NY provides a small lot allocation
preference to the Primary Specialist, Nasdaq BX Chap. VI, Section
10(c)(2) provides a small lot allocation preference for the Lead
Market Maker, Nasdaq GEM [sic] Rule 713.01(c) provides a small lot
allocation preference for Primary Market Makers, Nasdaq MRX provides
a small lot allocation preference for Primary Market Makers, Nasdaq
PHLX Rule 1014(g)(vii)(B)(1)(a) provides a small lot allocation
preference to specialist, MIAX Rule 514(g)(2) provides a small lot
allocation preference for the Primary Lead Market Maker, NYSE Arca
Rule 6.76A-O(a)(1)(B) provides a small lot allocation preference for
the Lead Market Maker, and Cboe Rule 6.45(c) provides a small lot
allocation preference for the Designated Primary Market Makers or
the Lead Market Maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the numerous options exchanges that provide exclusive
specialist assignments afford the opportunity for a market maker to be
the sole specialist in different classes on multiple exchanges. This
can, and most likely does, result in a market maker having an exclusive
specialist assignment in nearly every option class spread across
multiple exchanges. Therefore, they are entitled to a small lot
allocation preference in every option class. As a result of this, an
order flow provider can direct small lot orders to a specific
specialist by submitting the order to the exchange where the specialist
is exclusive for that specific class and the specialist would have
priority over all orders and quotes except those of Public Customers to
trade against the small lot. The Exchange does not believe that
providing the small lot allocation preference to all qualified
Preferred Market Makers will alter this current behavior because, under
the proposal, an order flow provider can achieve the same result by
preferencing the order on BOX to a specific Preferred Market Maker.
    In addition, the Exchange notes that it has increased quoting
requirements for market makers to be eligible to receive the small lot
allocation preference. Specifically, a Preferred Market Maker must
maintain a continuous two-sided market, pursuant to Rule 8050(c)(1),
throughout the trading day, in 99% of the non-adjusted option series of
each class for which it accepts Preferenced Orders, for 90% of the time
the Exchange is open for trading in each such option class.\9\ The
Exchange notes that these quoting requirements are higher than another
exchange that currently provides a small-lot allocation preference.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of this requirement, a Preferred Market Maker
is not required to quote in intra-day add-on series or series that
have a time to expiration of nine months or more in the classes for
which it receives Preferenced Orders and a Market Maker may still be
a Preferred Market Maker in any such series if the Market Maker
otherwise complies with Rule 7300(a)(2).
    \10\ See Cboe EDGX Rule 22.6(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allocation
    Currently, the Exchange's Rules provide that at the final price
level, where the remaining quantity of the Preferenced Order is less
than the total quantity of orders on the Exchange available for
execution, after all orders for the account of Public Customers, if
any, are allocated against the Preferenced Order, then the Preferred
Market Maker receives its allocation.\11\ Specifically, a Preferred
Market Maker shall receive an allocation equal to forty percent (40%)
of the remaining quantity of the Preferenced Order. However, if only
one other executable, non-public Customer order (in addition to the
quote of the Preferred Market Maker) matches the Preferenced Order at
the final price level, then the allocation to the Preferred Market
Maker shall be equal to fifty percent (50%) of the remaining quantity
of the Preferenced Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 7300(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is now proposing to amend the Preferred Market Maker
allocation when there is only one other non-Public Customer that
matches the Preferenced Order at the final price level. Specifically,
the Exchange is proposing to increase the Preferred Market Maker's
allocation to 60% when there is only one other non-Public Customer that
matches the Preferenced Order at the final price level. The Exchange
notes that other exchanges currently provide a 60% allocation when
there is only one other Participant that matches the Preferenced Order
at the final price level.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See MIAX Rule 514(g); see also ISE Supplementary Material
.03 to Rule 713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The quantity of the allocation to the Preferred Market Maker will
continue to be limited by the total quantity of the Preferred Market
Maker quote. Executions are allocated in numbers of whole contracts
and, to ensure the allocation priority afforded to Preferred Market
Makers does not exceed the applicable 40% or proposed 60%, allocations
of fractional contracts to Preferred Market Makers in the Preferred
allocation step are rounded down to the nearest whole number, which is
not less than one (1) contract. Legging Orders will not be considered
when determining whether the Preferred Market Maker is allocated 40% or
the proposed 60% in this step. As a result, in no case will a Preferred
Market Maker receive an allocation preference (above what it would
otherwise receive if executed in normal price-time priority) in excess
of 40% of the remaining quantity of the Preferenced Order after Public
Customer orders are filled (or the proposed 60% if only one other non-
Public Customer matches) at the final price level.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\13\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in
particular, in that it 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change is a
reasonable modification designed to provide incentives and enhanced
allocation to Preferred Market Makers when it is quoting at NBBO. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will increase the
number of transactions on the Exchange by attracting additional order
flow to the Exchange, which will ultimately enhance competition and
provide customers with additional opportunities for execution. The
Exchange believes these changes are consistent with the goals to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system. Specifically, the Exchange believes that
the proposal will result in increased liquidity available at improved
prices, with more competitive pricing outside the control of any single
Participant. The proposed rule change should promote and foster
competition.
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the Preferenced Order
allocation to provide a small lot

allocation preference is an improvement over the current allocation
algorithm, and will benefit all market participants submitting
Preferenced Orders on the Exchange. As a result of the proposed
changes, the Exchange believes that existing and additional
Participants will use Preferenced Orders to increase the number of
orders that are submitted to the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change to the Preferenced Order allocation
algorithm will encourage greater participation by Market Makers to
provide quotes on the Exchange as Preferred Market Makers. These
additional responses should encourage greater competition on the
Exchange, which should, in turn, benefit and protect investors and the
public interest through the potential for greater volume of orders and
executions.
    The proposed rule change continues to provide priority of Public
Customer orders over Preferred Market Makers at the same price. The
Exchange believes this priority is consistent with the purposes of the
Act. The Exchange believes the Preferenced Order allocation proposal is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to
protect investors and the public interest, because it recognizes the
unique status of Pubic Customers in the marketplace by ensuring Public
Customers maintain priority before any allocations afforded to
Preferred Market Makers.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Preferenced Order
allocation changes are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. Giving Preferred Market Makers the small lot allocation
preference and allocation priority of 60% of the remaining quantity of
the Preferenced Order in certain circumstances will provide important
incentives for Preferred Market Makers to provide liquidity on BOX,
which provides greater opportunity for executions, tighter spreads, and
better pricing for all Participants. While the Commission has, in the
past, been concerned about locking up larger portions of order flow
from intra-market price competition, the Exchange believes that the
proposed preferred allocation methods adequately balance the aim of
rewarding Preferred Market Makers by limiting the volume of small size
orders executed by Preferred Market Makers to account for no more than
40% of the volume executed on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the Preferred Market Maker allocation is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to
protect investors and the public interest, because it strikes a
reasonable balance between encouraging vigorous price competition and
rewarding Market Makers for their unique duties. In order to receive an
allocation preference, Preferred Market Makers must meet heightened
quoting requirements as Market Makers, and also be quoting at the NBBO
at the time the Preferenced Order is received. Heightened quoting
requirements mean that Preferred Market Makers must maintain a
continuous two-sided market throughout the trading day, in 99% of the
non-adjusted option series of each class for which it accepts
Preferenced Orders, for 90% of the time the Exchange is open for
trading in each such option class.\15\ Overall, the proposed changes to
the Preferred Market Maker allocations represent a careful balancing by
the Exchange with regard to the rewards and obligations of various
types of market participants. The Exchange believes these requirements
of Preferred Market Makers will provide an incentive for Market Makers
to assume these additional responsibilities beyond those already
required for Market Makers, which will facilitate improved trading
opportunities on BOX for all Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes of this requirement, a Preferred Market Maker
is not required to quote in intra-day add-on series or series that
have a time to expiration of nine months or more in the classes for
which it receives Preferenced Orders and a Market Maker may still be
a Preferred Market Maker in any such series if the Market Maker
otherwise complies with Rule 7300(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is a reasonable
modification designed to provide further incentives and enhanced
allocation to a Preferred Market Maker when it is quoting at NBBO. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will increase the
number of transactions on the Exchange by attracting additional
activity to the Exchange, which will ultimately enhance competition and
provide customers with additional opportunities for execution.
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the Preferenced Order
allocations are an improvement over the current allocation algorithm,
and will benefit all market participants submitting Preferenced Orders
on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed
Preferenced Order allocation algorithm will encourage greater
participation by Market Makers to provide quotes on the Exchange as
Preferred Market Makers. These additional responses should encourage
greater competition on the Exchange, which should, in turn, benefit and
protect investors and the public interest through the potential for
greater volume of orders and executions.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes this proposal is a
reasonable modification to its rules, designed to facilitate increased
interaction of orders on the Exchange, and to do so in a manner that
ensures a dynamic, real-time trading mechanism that maximizes
opportunities for trading executions of orders. The Exchange believes
it is appropriate and consistent with the Act to adopt the proposed
changes.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard, the Exchange
notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response
to the options exchanges with specialists. The Exchange believes that
the proposed change will allow the Exchange to further compete with
competitors that provide specialist assignments. With respect to intra-
market competition, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will
promote competition by allowing multiple competing Preferred Market
Makers per class.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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 up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the 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 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2018-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2018-20. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2018-20, and should be submitted on
or before July 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14112 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Note to File
Date
June 15, 2020
From
Samuel Hernandez P.E., Perchlorate Team Leader, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Subject
Recent Perchlorate Study

The EPA has reviewed the research study Allosteric Regulation of Mammalian Na+/I−Symporter Activity by Perchlorate published in May 2020 by Llorente-Esteban et al., in which the authors find that in vitro electrophysiological experiments have shown that the transport mechanism of iodide by the NIS protein is prevented when perchlorate competes for the binding of sodium by further reducing the stoichiometry of available iodide transport sites. The results of this new mechanistic study appears to be consistent with the EPA's analysis of the impacts of perchlorate on the thyroid and the Agency's derivation of the proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for perchlorate.
While Llorente-Esteban et al.(2020), provide some new information about the mechanism of perchlorate's iodide uptake inhibition (IUI), the EPA does not believe that this new information would lead the Agency to a different MCLG from the one proposed by the Agency in 2019. The EPA utilized a Biologically Based Dose Response (BBDR) model to predict IUI and subsequent changes in thyroid hormone production (USEPA 2018).
In addition, the BBDR model's estimates of IUI were verified against results from a human in vivo study that measured IUI attributable to perchlorate exposure (Greer et al., 2002) and were found to be consistent. Furthermore, because Greer et al. (2002) was conducted using human test subjects, the mechanism described by Llorente-Esteban et al. (2020) is assumed to be operational and thus represented in the Greer et al. (2002) results. Therefore, the Agency does not believe that refinements in modeling based on the new in vitro study are needed.
The EPA developed the BBDR model in response to recommendations from the Science Advisory Board (SAB, 2013). The EPA conducted two independent peer reviews of the BBDR model and methodology to derive a perchlorate MCLG in 2017 and 2018. The peer review panel determined the models were "fit for purpose" to inform an MCLG for perchlorate (External Peer Reviewers for U.S. EPA. 2017, 2018).

References:
External Peer Reviewers for U.S. EPA. (2017). External Peer Review of EPA's Draft Biologically Based Dose-Response Model and Draft BBDR Model Report for Perchlorate in Drinking Water.
External Peer Reviewers for U.S. EPA. (2018). External Peer Review for U.S. EPA's Proposed Approaches to Inform the Derivation of a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Perchlorate in Drinking Water.
Greer, M.A., Goodman, G., Pleus, R.C., Greer, S.E. (2002). Health effects assessment for environmental perchlorate contamination: The dose response for inhibition of thyroidal radioiodine uptake in humans. Environmental Health Perspectives. 110 (9), 927-937.
Llorente-Esteban, A., Manville, R.W., Reyna-Neyra, A., Abbott, G.W., Amsel, L.M., Carrasco, N. (2020) Allosteric regulation of mammalian Na+/I− symporter activity by perchlorate. Nat Struct Mol Biol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-020-0417-5.
SAB for the U.S. EPA. (2013). SAB Advice on Approaches to Derive a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Perchlorate. EPA-SAB-13-004.
USEPA. (2018). Proposed Approaches to Inform the Derivation of a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Perchlorate in Drinking Water. EPA 816-R-19-008.


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Final rule; request for comments signed original, grid, Economic and Regulatory  Evaluation, Unscannable items list, and MCAI.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5273-5274]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0004]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 130
individuals who requested an exemption from the vision standard in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing materials in the docket, contact Docket
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0004 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

B. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    FMCSA received applications from 130 individuals who requested an
exemption from the vision standard in the FMCSRs.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety that would be obtained by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(10).

III. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-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 grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period
to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on medical reports about the applicants' vision, as well as their
driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency.

IV. Conclusion

    The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the
eligibility criteria or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal
exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety that would be obtained by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
Therefore, the 130 applicants in this notice have been denied
exemptions from the physical qualification standards in Sec.
391.41(b)(10).
    Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of
final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision
letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final
action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent
denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically
publishing names and reasons for denial.
    The following four applicants did not have sufficient driving
experience over the past three years under normal highway operating
conditions:

Jason D. Ainley (MO)
Judge M. Arnold (OK)
Yves F. Bresse (AK)
Herman W. Zigmond (TX)

    The following 54 applicants had no experience operating a CMV:

Ramzi Alqam (IL)
James E. Balsbaugh (TN)
Joseph E. Bean (MI)
Joshua J. Borden (GA)
Shawn H. Campbell (IN)
Michael T. Carlton (AL)
Muhammad S. Chaudhry (MD)
Matthew V. Cordero (NM)
Cathy L. Daugherty (PA)
Cody J. Davis (NM)
Trenell V. Dunson (MI)
Pedro A. Garcia (TX)
Chimezie Godwin (CA)
Christopher B. Green (AL)
Steven A. Gwinn (IN)
Adnane Habbaoui (OH)
DeWayne S. Harbin (IN)
Wayne C. Hill (AR)
Jesse C. Hohman (PA)
Ryan A. Hunt (MN)
Eric P. Huoppi (ME)
Michael J. Jager (WI)
Jody T. Jaramillo (OR)
Marquitta A. Justice (KY)
Michael J. Kindred (NY)
Abigal R. Knight (NY)
Dominic A. Lewis (DC)
Tyrone Mays (WI)
Jonathan P. McDougal (AL)
Roy D. Meeks (TN)
Susan A. Muza (NJ)
Monte F. Nitek (WI)
Simone W. Norden (MA)
Sikotilani Palanite (ND)
Dylan N. Paradis (ME)
David F. Ramacitti (IL)
Denzel M. Rawls (NY)
Richard A. Reed (KY)
Jorden D. Riesberg (IA)
Ana M. Rodriguez (WI)
Jose A. Romero Hernandez (FL)
Michael P. Ruxton (NC)
Ronald L. Smith (NV)
Christopher M. Strickland (WA)
Joseph Svetich (IL)
Mark Thibault (CT)
Gary W. Thom (MN)
Patricia C. Towles (NJ)
Konstantinos Trahanas (IL)
Jason E. Travers (CA)
Bryon C. Westrup (SD)
Dana Williams (IL)
Michael A. Williams (NH)
Antonio T. Woodson (VA)

    The following 28 applicants did not have three years of experience
driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:

William D. Ahrens (NE)
George G. Bartholomew (AK)
Steven L. Bublitz (MN)
Nikola J. Bukvich (IL)
Ronald G. Cichy (WI)
Walter R. Conover (NJ)
David E. Dickinson (CA)
Kenneth A. Dunkelberger (OR)
Matthew L. Farley (WA)
Wade A. Farrell (MT)
Andrew T. Grenman (IL)
Paul A. Hanson (MN)
Allen M. Jean (PA)
Michael A. Kauffmann (TX)
Craig Lauer (MN)

Daryl A. Lee (IN)
Trey K. Legg (NE)
Sabah K. Noori (NY)
Dale K. Norris (MN)
Larry M. Pratt (WI)
Rodney J. Redmon (FL)
Todd M. Roth (IN)
Kenneth W. Schmidt (PA)
Keith L. Spence (CT)
Latonia B. Spicer (NC)
Ronald E. Sutton (VA)
Larry M. Tabish (MT)
Forrest K. Williams (MO)

    The following seven applicants did not have 3 years of recent
experience driving a CMV on public highways with their vision
deficiencies:

Lawrence A. DiVetro (NV)
Madeline C. Duran (NM)
Jack M. Elliott (KS)
Johnnie R. Johnson (OK)
William C. Kelley (WI)
Jon A. Stevens (MN)
Trent C. Tonner (IN)

    The following seven applicants did not have sufficient driving
experience over the past 3 years under normal highway operating
conditions (gaps in driving record):

Alfredo E. Carrillo Posada (CO)
Gregory B. Gosha (AL)
Kelvin A. Hulett (MS)
Leon J. Kirksey (MD)
Jerred R. Murray (NY)
Thomas A. Paukowits (MI)
Rogelio Rocha Monjaraz (MD)

    The following applicant was charged with moving violations in
conjunction with CMV accidents:

Michael W. Leverett (MI)

    The following applicant had his commercial driver's license
suspended during the 3-year period in relation to a moving violation:

Thomas M. Bakeberg (SD)

    The following applicant contributed to accident(s) in which the
applicant was operating a CMV, which is a disqualifying offense:

Bruce E. Hemmer (WI)

    The following two applicants did not hold a license which allowed
operation of vehicles over 26,000 lbs. for all or part of the 3-year
period:

Norman D. Mosley (NJ); and Robert L. Strange (NC)

    The following 13 applicants were denied for multiple reasons:

Gema L. Alvarado (UT)
Eduardo Arguelles (TX)
John N. Azzopardi (MT)
Frank L. Crenshaw (OH)
Tommie L. Dailey (AL)
Giovanni Gualdron (NJ)
Monica M. Hernandez (CA)
Roman I. Hrabovskyi (NJ)
Johnny M. Kruprzak (OH)
Elvin E. Martin (PA)
Kevin D. Melvin (NY)
Michael C. Shelp (NY)
Raymond F. Sitter (ND)

    The following two applicants have not had stable vision for the
preceding 3-year period:

William C. Hurtgen (WI); and
James N. Robbins (FL)

    The following applicant does not meet the vision standard in his
better eye:

Keith D. Smith (FL)

    The following nine applicants drove interstate while restricted to
intrastate driving:

Norlan A. Acosta (MD)
Adam J. Crull (WA)
Trina L. Garcia (CA)
Jureco M. Hall (MD)
Nathan J. Plumley (NY)
Izone W. Pulley (MD)
Sonya Rankins (CA)
Arthur L. Spaventa (PA)
Marlon A. Wilson (CT)

    Issued on: January 16, 2020.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-01549 Filed 1-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2593-2596]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01420]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85042; File No. SR-BX-2018-069]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Transaction Fees at Equity 7, Section 118(a)

February 1, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 21, 2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Equity 7, Section 118(a), as described further below.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on January 2, 2018
[sic].
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
transaction fees at Rule 7018(a) [sic] to: (1) Adjust the qualifying
terms for certain existing credits it offers to members with orders
that access liquidity on the Exchange; (2) offer a new credit for
members with orders that access liquidity on the Exchange; and (3)
eliminate a fee for members with orders that add liquidity on the
Exchange.
First Change
    The Exchange operates on the ``taker-maker'' model, whereby it pays
credits to members that take liquidity and charges fees to members that
provide liquidity. Currently, the Exchange offers several different
credits for orders that access liquidity on the Exchange. Among these
credits, the Exchange offers a $0.0018 per share executed credit for
orders that access liquidity in securities in Tapes A and C (excluding
orders with Midpoint pegging and excluding orders that receive price
improvement and execute against an order with a Non-displayed price)
that are entered by a member that: (i) Accesses liquidity equal to or
exceeding 0.20% of total Consolidated Volume \3\ during a month; and
(ii) accesses 20% more liquidity as a percentage of Consolidated Volume
than the member accessed in May 2018. The Exchange also offers a
$0.0019 per share executed credit for orders that access liquidity in
securities in Tape B (excluding orders with Midpoint pegging and
excluding orders that receive price improvement and execute against an
order with a Non-displayed price) that are entered by a member that:
(i) Accesses liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.20% of total
Consolidated Volume during a month; and (ii) accesses 20% more
liquidity as a percentage of Consolidated Volume than the member
accessed in May 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to Equity 7, Section 118(a), the term
``Consolidated Volume'' means the total consolidated volume reported
to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all exchanges and
trade reporting facilities during a month in equity securities,
excluding executed orders with a size of less than one round lot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these two credits, the Exchange proposes to decrease the
applicable volume threshold from 0.20% to 0.15% of total Consolidated
Volume during a month. The Exchange proposes to recalibrate the
threshold downward to make it easier for firms to reach the
Consolidated Volume threshold necessary to qualify for these credits.
    The Exchange also proposes to change the benchmark month that it
uses to determine whether a member, in a given month, has achieved the
requisite 20% increase in liquidity accessed as a percentage of
Consolidated Volume to qualify for the credits. Whereas the benchmark
month presently is May 2018, the Exchange proposes to change it to
December 2018. This change in benchmark month is intended to
incentivize market participants to trade on the Exchange by making it
easier for a member to qualify for these credits. Volumes in May 2018
were generally higher than they were in December 2018, such that a 20%
increase in

liquidity accessed as a percentage of Consolidated Volume will be
easier to achieve relative to December 2018 than it would be relative
to May 2018.
Second Change
    In addition to the credits above, the Exchange also offers other
credits for orders that access liquidity on the Exchange. First, the
Exchange offers a member a $0.0018 per share executed credit for its
orders that access liquidity in securities in Tapes A and C (excluding
orders with Midpoint pegging and excluding orders that receive price
improvement and execute against an order with a Non-displayed price) to
the extent that the member, during a given month: (i) Has a total
volume (including both providing and accessing liquidity) that is equal
to or exceeds 0.50% of total Consolidated Volume during that month;
(ii) has a total volume that is at least 20% greater (as a percentage
of Consolidated Volume) than its total volume in July 2018; and (iii)
of the 20% or more increase in total volume described above, at least
30% is attributable to adding liquidity. Second, the Exchange offers a
member a $0.0019 per share executed credit for orders that access
liquidity in securities in Tape B (excluding orders with Midpoint
pegging and excluding orders that receive price improvement and execute
against an order with a Non-displayed price) to members that satisfy
these same three conditions.
    For these two credits, the Exchange proposes to decrease--from
0.50% to 0.40%--the requisite percentage of total Consolidated Volume
that a member's total volume must equal for a member to qualify for
each of the credits, The Exchange proposes to recalibrate the threshold
downward to make it easier for a member to qualify for these credits.
    The Exchange also proposes to change the benchmark month that it
will use to determine whether, in a given month, a member has achieved
a 20% or more increase in total volume so as to qualify for each of the
credits. Whereas the benchmark date presently is July 2018 for both
credits, the Exchange proposes to change it to December 2018. This
change in benchmark month is intended to incentivize market
participants to trade on the Exchange by making it easier for a member
to qualify for these credits. Total volumes in July 2018 were generally
higher than they were in December 2018, such that a 20% increase in
total volumes relative to December 2018 will be easier for a member to
achieve than it would a 20% increase relative to July 2018.
Third Change
    Next, the Exchange proposes to offer a new credit for a member that
accesses liquidity in any Tape. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
pay a credit of $0.0018 per share executed to a member with orders that
access liquidity in securities in any Tape (excluding orders with
Midpoint pegging and excluding orders that receive price improvement
and execute against an order with a Non-displayed price) where the
member accesses liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.50% of total
Consolidated Volume during a month.
    The Exchange proposes to add this credit to provide a new and
simple incentive for members to access liquidity in substantial volumes
on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it already offers members
similar, albeit lower, credits for accessing liquidity equal to or
exceeding lower threshold percentages of total Consolidated Volume
during a given month ($0.0017 per share executed credit for accessing
liquidity equal to or greater than 0.12% of total Consolidated Volume
during a month; $0.0015 per share executed credit for accessing
liquidity equal to or greater than 0.065% of total Consolidated Volume
during a month. The proposed credit will offer a member a higher credit
than these existing credits for maintaining a higher volume of
liquidity accessing activity on the Exchange.
Fourth Change
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate its $0.0013 per share
executed charge for displayed orders entered by a member that adds
liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.55% of total Consolidated Volume
during a month. This fee tier has not achieved its intended purpose of
attracting liquidity to the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to eliminate it.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

First Change
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to decrease the
Consolidated Volume threshold and adjust the benchmark month on its
credits for orders that access liquidity in securities (excluding
orders with Midpoint pegging and excluding orders that receive price
improvement and execute against an order with a Non-displayed price)
that are entered by a member that: (i) Accesses liquidity equal to or

exceeding 0.20% of total Consolidated Volume during a month; and (ii)
accesses 20% more liquidity as a percentage of Consolidated Volume than
the member accessed in May 2018. As noted above, the Exchange proposes
to decrease the volume threshold for these credits from .20% to .15% of
total Consolidated Volume and adjust the benchmark month from May 2018
to December 2018.
    The Exchange must, from time to time, assess the effectiveness of
its credits in achieving their intended objectives and adjust the
levels of such credits based on the Exchange's observations of market
participant behavior. In this instance, the Exchange has observed that
the credits are becoming too difficult for members to achieve. The
Exchange proposes to decrease the volume threshold for the credits to
make it easier for members to qualify for the credits. Likewise, the
Exchange proposes to change the benchmark month that it uses to
determine whether a member, in a given month, has achieved the
requisite 20% increase in liquidity accessed as a percentage of
Consolidated Volume to qualify for the credits. The change in benchmark
month will incentivize trading on the Exchange by making it easier for
a member to qualify for these credits. Volumes in May 2018 were
generally higher than they were in December 2018, such that a 20%
increase in liquidity accessed as a percentage of Consolidated Volume
will be easier to achieve relative to December 2018 than it would be
relative to May 2018.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable because
it will incentivize increased participation on the Exchange. It is not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all similarly situated
member firms.
Second Change
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to decrease the
Consolidated Volume threshold and adjust the benchmark month on its
credits for orders that access liquidity in securities (excluding
orders with Midpoint pegging and excluding orders that receive price
improvement and execute against an order with a Non-displayed price)
that are entered by a member that, during a given month: (i) Has a
total volume (including both providing and accessing liquidity) that is
equal to or exceeds 0.50% of total Consolidated Volume during that
month; (ii) has a total volume that is at least 20% greater (as a
percentage of Consolidated Volume) than its total volume in July 2018;
and (iii) of the 20% or more increase in total volume described above,
at least 30% is attributable to adding liquidity. As noted above, the
Exchange proposes to decrease--from 0.50% to 0.40%--the requisite
percentage of total Consolidated Volume that a member's total volume
must equal for a member to qualify for each of the credits. It also
proposes to change the benchmark month from July 2018 to December 2018.
    The Exchange must, from time to time, assess the effectiveness of
its credits in achieving their intended objectives and adjust the
levels of such credits based on the Exchange's observations of market
participant behavior. In this instance, the Exchange has observed that
the credits are becoming too difficult for members to achieve. The
Exchange proposes to decrease the volume threshold for the credits to
make it easier for members to qualify for the credits. Likewise, the
Exchange proposes to change the benchmark month that it uses to
determine whether a member, in a given month, has achieved the
requisite 20% increase in total volume as a percentage of Consolidated
Volume to qualify for the credits. The change in benchmark month will
incentivize trading on the Exchange by making it easier for a member to
qualify for these credits. Total volumes in July 2018 were generally
higher than they were in December 2018, such that a 20% increase in
total volume as a percentage of Consolidated Volume will be easier to
achieve relative to December 2018 than it would be relative to July
2018.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable because
it will incentivize increased participation on the Exchange. It is not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all similarly situated
member firms.
Third Change
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to add a new
credit for orders that access liquidity (excluding orders with Midpoint
pegging and those that receive price improvement and execute against an
order with a non-displayed price) that are entered by members that, in
a given month, remove and access liquidity equal to or in excess of
0.50% of Consolidated Volume during the month. This proposal is
reasonable because it will provide new and stronger incentive for
members to remove liquidity from the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that these proposals are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they will apply to all similarly situated member firms.
Fourth Change
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to eliminate
its $0.0013 per share executed fee for displayed orders entered by a
member that adds liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.55% of total
Consolidated Volume during a month. The Exchange believes that
eliminating this fee tier is reasonable because this fee tier has not
been effective in achieving its intended purpose of incentivizing
participants to add liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange has limited
resources available to it to devote to the operation of special pricing
programs and as such, it is reasonable and equitable for the Exchange
to allocate those resources to those programs that are effective and
away from those programs that are ineffective. The proposal is also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because tit will apply
uniformly to all similarly situated members.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees and credits 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 and credits in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee or credit changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the Exchange's proposals to add to or modify
credits and to eliminate fees do not impose a burden on competition
because these proposals are reflective of the Exchange's overall
efforts to provide greater incentives to market participants that it
believes will improve the market, to the benefit of all participants.
The Exchange does not believe that any of the proposed changes will
impair the ability of members or competing order

execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets. Moreover, because there are numerous competitive
alternatives to the use of the Exchange, it is likely that BX will lose
market share as a result of the changes if they are unattractive to
market participants.
    Likewise, the Exchange's proposed credits, credit amendments, and
fee eliminations do not impose a burden on competition because the
Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to
extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange
venues. Again, if the proposals are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal
will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2018-069 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-BX-2018-069. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2018-069, and should be submitted on
or before February 19, 2019.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Commission believes that a 10 day comment period is
reasonable, given the 60-day suspension period under Exchange Act
Section 19(b)(3). It will provide adequate time for comment.
    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-01420 Filed 2-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 36533]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15547]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-491-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on May 23, 2011 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251, filed
in the above Docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural
Gas Act (NGA) and Transco's authorization in Docket No. CP82-426-000,
for authorization to abandon in place: (i) Approximately 8.45 mile, 12-
inch pipeline extending from South Marsh Island Block 38 to South Marsh
Island Block 23, (ii) approximately 0.455 mile, 12-inch pipeline
extending from production platform B in South Marsh Island Block 33 to
South Marsh Island Block 38, (iii) and related metering facilities at
South Marsh Island Block 33 and appurtenant facilities, collectively
referred as the SMI Facilities, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Nan
Miksovsky, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, P.O. Box 1396,
Houston, Texas, 77251 at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: June 6, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15547 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 Summary of Summary of EPA Ethics Review EPA Ethics Review McFarlane, P.; Sanderson, J.; Freestone, S. ( 1998) A Randomised Double Blind Ascending Oral Dose Study with Methomyl to Establish a No Adverse Effect Level: Lab Project No. HLO 1998 00969. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Clinical Research. 468 p. MRID 44721401. 2 Methomyl Oral Study Methomyl Oral Study

Conducted at Inveresk in 1998, among the first post

FQPA human studies of ChEI

Designed as 6 level escalating dose protocol, with no further escalation after   40% ChEI

Subject receiving lead dose in session 2 experienced > 40% ChEI

Investigators proceeded with session 3, omitting the lead dose; later amended protocol to add intermediate ( lower) dose 3 Methomyl Methomyl " Framework Framework"

1. Value  Not published or disseminated  Societal value not addressed in reports 2. Scientific Validity: Defer to others 3. Subject Selection  Adult male volunteers from pool at laboratory  No evidence of use of vulnerable groups 4 Methomyl Methomyl " Framework Framework"

 2 4. Risk Benefit Ratio  Risks adequately described to subjects  Risk minimization not discussed; narrow margin between planned doses and reported animal NOELs  Societal or other benefits not addressed  Weighing of societal benefits against risks to subjects not addressed 5 Methomyl Methomyl " Framework Framework"

 3 5. Independent Ethics Review  Protocol approved by Inveresk Independent Ethics Committee  Committee members named, but independence from investigators and freedom from conflicts of interest not addressed 6 Methomyl Methomyl " Framework Framework"

 4 6. Informed Consent  Consent was obtained from all subjects  Volunteer information covered procedure and possible physical effects adequately, but was less complete on other topics, especially the nature and distribution of benefits  potentially confusing references to the   supervising doctor  and   the company , neither of whom was identified 7 Methomyl Methomyl " Framework Framework"

 5 7. Respect for Subjects  Subjects' privacy was protected  Subjects were free to withdraw without penalty 8 Methomyl: Prevailing Standard Methomyl: Prevailing Standard

Conducted in UK in 1998 9

Cites and asserts compliance with Declaration of Helsinki ( 1996)

Cites and asserts compliance with " guideline for Good Clinical Practice ( CPMP/ ICH/ 135/ 95)" 9 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

Basic Principle # 5: " Every . . .

project . . . should be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks in comparison with foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others."

EPA Comment: If a careful assessment was conducted it was not reported. 10 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 2

Basic Principle # 12: " The research protocol should always contain a statement of the ethical considerations involved . . . ."

EPA Comment: There is no such statement in the protocol 11 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 3

Non Therapeutic Principle # 3.   The investigator or the investigating team should discontinue the research if in his/ her or their judgment it may, if continued, be harmful to the individual.

Non Therapeutic Principle # 4.   In research on man, the interest of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to the well being of the subject.  12 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 4

EPA Comment: The investigators and sponsor decided to proceed with Session 3,

dosing four additional subjects at the level which had already caused ChEI > 40% in another subject, without consultation with the reviewing ethics committee. Their choice to eliminate the leading dose from Session 3,

deviating from but not amending the protocol, suggests that they knew they were working near the threshold at which continuation of the research might be harmful to the subjects. 13 Methomyl Summary Methomyl Summary

There are some gaps in the record, but gaps are not " clear and convincing evidence".

There is no evidence that the research was fundamentally unethical.

Some deficiencies are apparent relative to the cited 1996 Declaration of Helsinki.

We welcome the Board's advice on the significance of those deficiencies.