[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 53094]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4518-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Arkansas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-4518-DR), dated April 3, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 5, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
dated April 3, 2020 for the State of Arkansas is hereby amended to
include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    All areas within the State of Arkansas are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-20693 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


		MEMORANDUM

To:		Robert Burt, Robert Stone, Bob Blicksilver OSHA

From:		John Eyraud and Chet Fenton, ERG

Date:		May 30, 2014

Subject:	Utilization rates and charges for small frac jobs

************************************************************************
****************

ERG reviewed the available data on the duration of hydraulic fracturing
(HF; “frac”) jobs for the smallest firms in the industry. At issue
was whether ERG’s estimate of likely revenue levels and utilization
rates was more or less reflective of actual practices than the rates
suggested by the American Petroleum Industry (API).

In developing its March 2013 final report, ERG examined 2006 data from
the US Census, County Business Patterns which indicated that the
smallest strata of HF firms would, on average, generate $2.15 million in
revenues per entity (See Table 1, as derived from the ERG report, ERG,
2013). Because the NAICS code for well servicing encompasses a variety
of well site activities, these data are of uncertain value in
characterizing a single type of well servicing, namely hydraulic
fracturing (HF). Based on discussions with project consultants, ERG
judged that average frac job for these small firms generates $25,000 in
revenues per well. As is discussed further below, ERG selected $25,000
as a reasonable estimate of job revenues, from a revenue range for small
frac jobs of $5,000 to $50,000. ERG also judged, at the time, that a
$25,000 frac job is likely a relatively brief job, involving one day on
site and fracturing of a single oil or gas production zone. Using that
figure, firms earning $2.15 million in revenues would complete only 86
jobs per year. If it is assumed that the jobs are completed in 1 day (an
assumption discussed further below), this suggests that small frac
fleets are in use only 23.5 percent of the year ($2.15 million divided
by $25,000 and divided by 365 days of the year).

Industry publications have noted utilization rates for the HF industry
at very high levels in recent years, with some estimates over 80 percent
(see, for example, PacWest Consulting Partners, 2012). The utilization
rate is used in the calculations to help estimate the likely revenue
levels for small fracking firms, using the assumptions about average
revenues per small frac job. No utilization data are available
specifically for the smallest operators in the industry. ERG judged that
it was likely that utilization rates were higher than implied by the
calculations above (i.e., that more than 86 small frac jobs per small
frac firm were performed in a year) and, therefore, that average
revenues were likely much higher than the Census figures suggested.

API argued that the average job requires three days and, thus, that the
estimate of 86 jobs were a likely limit to the activities of these firms
during the year. API accepted the estimate of $25,000 per job for the
smallest strata of fracking firms. If it is true that the frac jobs take
longer, then the firms would complete fewer jobs per year, which
translates to lower revenues per year.

API noted that our use of utilization rates was incorrect in that ERG
interpreted the utilization rate to represent the percentage of days on
which a well stage is being fracked (and on which revenues from fracking
are being generated). More accurately, the utilization rate includes the
days in which the frac fleet is traveling, setting up, or dismantling
equipment at the well site, as well as the days on which fracking is
performed. ERG should have explicitly taken into account the possibility
of additional travel time in the utilization rates. For larger HF
companies, this criticism is of little relevance because the revenue
estimates are not tied to the utilization estimates. Nevertheless, API
appears to overcompensate for this by generating too large of an
estimate of the time needed for these very small frac jobs.

For these smallest firms, incorporating lengthier travel times into the
calculations suggests that a somewhat lower utilization rate should be
used in estimating revenues. ERG, however, judges that travel times to
jobs would not be very large for most very small companies, and are not
likely to be as lengthy as suggested by API (which included a day of
set-up and travel before and a day of travel after each well is fracked
for a total of three days per job). As is discussed below, ERG
identified regions with shallow oil and gas reservoirs and, thus,
shallow wells. In these regions, fracking companies sometimes complete
jobs entirely in one day (including set-up, fracking, and dismantling of
equipment) suggesting that ERG’s estimate of 1 day per job was more
reasonable than API’s 3-days-per-job estimate.

The fact that a frac firm is on site for only 1 day does not necessarily
mean that there is minimal travel between sites. But the industry
economics dictate that most travel cannot be too lengthy relative to the
length of the job, and therefore suggest that lengthy travel for small
frac jobs would be unusual. Also, in many cases, even in areas with
shallow wells, frac crews might stay at the well for several days, such
as if they are fracking more than one production zones while on site.
These types of projects, with several days at the well, also reduce the
share of travel time in the overall fleet utilization.

ERG originally calculated different HF firm revenue estimates using 40,
60 and 80 percent utilization rates, and then calculated revenue and
profit impacts using the middle value, that is, a 60 percent utilization
rate (See Table 2). Tables 3 and 4 present the original and revised
estimates of revenue and profit impacts. Using the original estimates
(including an estimate that firms generated revenues on 60 percent of
the days of the year), ERG generated an average revenue for the smallest
fracking firms of $5.5 million per year. If a lower utilization rate is
employed (average per small frac job revenues are generated on 40
percent of the days of the year), then these smallest fracking firms
earn $3.6 million per year. With the change, profit impacts increase
from 4.5 percent to 6.8 percent. Revenue impacts increase from 0.5
percent to 0.7 percent.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  1 . Summary of Total NAICS
Establishments and of Selected Size Categories—As Extracted from HF
Report

Employee Size Category	Entities (a)	Establish-ments (a)	Employment (a)
Receipts ($000) (b)	Revenue per Entity (b)	Revenue per Establishment (b)

Total NAICS	6,845	8,008	155,404	$34,524,044	$5,043,688	$4,311,194

10-19	840	876	11,300	$1,808,128	$2,152,533	$2,064,073

20-99	840	968	30,917	$4,993,872	$5,945,086	$5,158,959

100-499	149	318	21,536	$4,771,591	$32,024,101	$15,005,003

500+	83	855	78,673	$20,520,367	$247,233,339	$24,000,429

Total for Selected Employment Size Categories	1,912	3,017	142,426
$32,093,959

(a) Census Bureau, 2006.

(b) Estimates based on 2002 receipts and payroll data from Census
Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2002 and payroll data from Census
Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2006. Receipts are not reported
for 2006, but were estimated holding the ratio of receipts to payroll
remained unchanged between 2002 and 2006.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  2 . Derivation of Adjusted HF Per
Establishment Revenue Estimates—As Extracted from HF Report

Employee Size Category	Estimated Number of Entities in Hydraulic
Fracturing	Estimated No. of Establishments per Entity	Total
Establish-ments	Census-Based Revenue Per Establishment Estimate (a)
Estimated HF Revenue Per Stage (b)	Estimated Establishment Revenues at
Different Utilization Rates (Percent)(c)

40%	60%	80%

10-19	100	1	100	 $      2,064,073 	$25,000 	$3,650,000 	$5,475,000
$7,300,000

20-99	50	1.2	60	 $      5,158,959 	$50,000 	$7,300,000 	$10,950,000
$14,600,000

100-499	46	4	184	 $    15,005,003 	$100,000 	$14,600,000 	$21,900,000
$29,200,000

500+	4	25	100	 $    24,000,429 	$136,335 	$19,904,910 	$29,857,365
$39,809,820

Total	200	 	444

(a) Derived in   REF _Ref347305932 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 1  above.

(b) Estimated by ERG.

(c) Utilization is defined as performance of 1 stage per day for the
specified percentage of days in the years. As noted in the discussion,
many HF jobs will accomplish more than one stage in a day.

Data on Average Length of Frac Jobs

ERG had previously contacted consultants and industry personnel about
the activities of the smallest strata of firms in the industry. The
comments received included:

According to an industry contact, the smallest jobs might generate from
$4,500 to $50,000 in revenues. For some of these jobs, the frac job
might be done for testing purposes, or because of problems with the
downhole operations. Some of these jobs might be use only water (i.e.,
no sand) as it is not necessary to stimulate the well with a sand frac
(King, 2013). Stripper well jobs are among the smallest jobs.

According to a fracturing firm, the smallest jobs involve one stage of
fracking and generate $10,000 to $50,000 in revenues (name withheld).

A Michigan state official judged that some frac jobs had been done in a
day, although the number of shallow wells now being drilled in Michigan
has diminished to very few. The Michigan oil and gas formations are
quite shallow and might use 40,000 to 100,000 gallons of water as
opposed to the multimillion gallon fracturing jobs on deeper well. When
drilling occurs, it is common for frac jobs to last two days, with a
stage drilled each day (Henderson, 2012 and 2014).

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  3 . Profit Impacts for Hydraulic
Fracturing (at 3% Discount Rate)-Original Estimate As Extracted from HF
Report

NAICS	Industry	Total Costs	Total Affected Establishments 	Cost per
Affected Establish-ment	Revenues per Establish-ment [a] 	Profit Rate [b]
Profits per Estab	Cost as % of rev-enues	Cost as % of profits

All Establishments

213112	Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations	$26,392,500	444
$59,443	$18,513,145	10.31%	$1,908,705	0.3%	3.1%

SBA Entities

213112	Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations	$2,564,504	100
$25,645	$5,475,000	10.31%	$564,473	0.5%	4.5%

Entities with <20 Employees

213112	Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations	$2,564,504	100
$25,645	$5,475,000	10.31%	$564,473	0.5%	4.5%

[a] Revenues inflated from 2006 to 2009 dollars based on the GDP
implicit price deflator.

[b] IRS, 2002 to 2006

Note: In calculating this table, ERG had assumed that firms were
fracking on 60 percent of all days during the year.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  4 . Profit Impacts for Hydraulic Fracturing
(at 3% Discount Rate)-Adjusted Estimate with Lower Utilization Rate for
the Smallest HF Firms

NAICS

Industry

Total Costs

Total Affected Establish-ments

Cost per Affected Establish-ment

Revenues per Establish-ment [a]

Profit Rate [b]

Profits per Establish-ment

Cost as % of revenues

Cost as % of profits

SBA Entities

213112

Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations

$2,564,504

100

$25,645

$3,650,000

10.31%

$376,315

0.70%

6.81%

Entities with <20 Employees

213112

Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations

$2,564,504

100

$25,645

$3,650,000

10.31%

$376,315

0.70%

6.81%

[a] Revenues inflated from 2006 to 2009 dollars based on the GDP
implicit price deflator.

[b] IRS, 2002 to 2006

Note: For this revised estimate, ERG assumed that firms were fracking on
40 percent of the days of the year.

Additional contacts after the hearings generated the following
information:

Oklahoma has numerous shallow wells and many are fracked entirely in a
day. The individual could not estimate the overall percentage of such
wells among the total (Baker, 2014).

An executive in the Texas Railroad Commission judged that some frac jobs
were completed in a day. Such jobs would most likely be located in the
Permian basin or in West Texas where there are numerous shallow,
vertical wells (Savage, 2014). One-day jobs would not be expected in the
Eagle Ford or Barnett oil fields, where the reserves are located at a
greater depth.

These data suggest that a share of frac jobs are indeed completed within
a day, suggesting that the frac fleet involved might be redeployed to
another location on the next day, although travel distances might be
sufficient to prevent that. The overall average duration of jobs might
be more than one day, but it also appears to be less than 3 days a large
percentage of the time for this smallest stratum of firms. As noted
above, ERG also calculated the revenue levels using a 40 percent
utilization rate for very small fracking firms, which equates to about
1.725 days per job.

References

Baker, Tim. 2014. Telephone conversation between Tim Baker, Field
Operations Supervisor, Oklahoma Oil and Gas Commission and John Eyraud
of ERG. May 13.

Henderson, Rick. 2014. Telephone conversation between Rick Henderson,
Field Supervisor, Michigan Division of Oil and Gas and Minerals, and
John Eyraud of ERG, May 8.

King, George. 2013. Telephone conversation between George King,
Distinguished Engineering Advisor, Apache Corporation and John Eyraud
and Anita Singh, ERG. January 24, and February 11, 2013.

PacWest Consulting Partners. 2012. PacWest Consulting Partners. Press
Release for 3rd quarter Pumping IQ report.

< HYPERLINK
"http://pacwestcp.com/2012/09/us-hydraulic-fracturing-market-will-be-ove
rsupplied-by-nearly-3-6-million-horsepower-by-the-end-of-2012-says-repor
t-from-pacwest-consulting-partners/"
http://pacwestcp.com/2012/09/us-hydraulic-fracturing-market-will-be-over
supplied-by-nearly-3-6-million-horsepower-by-the-end-of-2012-says-report
-from-pacwest-consulting-partners/

Savage, Leslie. 2014. Chief Geologist, Oil & Gas Division, Railroad
Commission of Texas,  conversation between John Eyraud of ERG and Leslie
Savitch, Texas Railroad Commission. May 6, 2014.

 PAGE

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 21000-21001]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2002-D-0094] (formerly Docket No. 02D-0049)

Draft Guidance for the Public, Food and Drug Administration
Advisory Committee Members, and Food and Drug Administration Staff:
Public Availability of Advisory Committee Members' Financial Interest
Information and Waivers; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for the public, FDA advisory committee
members, and FDA staff entitled ``Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory
Committee Members, and FDA Staff: Public Availability of Advisory
Committee Members' Financial Interest Information and Waivers.'' This
draft guidance is intended to help the public, FDA advisory committee
members, and FDA staff to understand and implement FDA procedures
regarding public availability of information regarding certain
financial interests and waivers granted by FDA to permit individuals to
participate in an advisory committee meeting. The draft guidance would
provide even greater transparency to FDA's advisory committee process
than current guidance. The draft guidance announced in this notice,
when finalized, would replace guidance of the same title dated August
2008.

DATES: Although you may comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance
by June 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
Office of Special Medical Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 5103, Silver Spring, MD 20993. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. Submit phone requests to<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
guidance document.
    Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Ortwerth, Office of Special
Medical Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 5103, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled
``Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA
Staff: Public Availability of Advisory Committee Members' Financial
Interest Information and Waivers.'' FDA's advisory committees provide
independent and expert advice on scientific, technical, and policy
matters related to the development and evaluation of products regulated
by FDA. FDA implements a rigorous process for soliciting and vetting
candidates for advisory committee meetings to minimize any potential
for financial conflicts of interest. The agency is authorized by
statute to grant waivers to allow individuals with potentially
conflicting financial interests to participate in meetings where we
conclude, after close scrutiny, that certain criteria are met. (See 18
U.S.C. 208(b)(1) and (b)(3), section 712(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 379d-1) (added by the Food
and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, Public Law No. 110-85),
and section 701 (21 U.S.C. 371) (effective October 1, 2007)).
    In January 2002, FDA issued the ``Draft Guidance on Disclosure of
Conflicts of Interest for Special

Government Employees Participating in FDA Product Specific Advisory
Committees,'' and requested comments on the draft guidance (formerly
Docket No. 02D-0049 now Docket No. FDA-2002-D-0094). The draft guidance
was limited in application to special government employees (SGEs)
participating in advisory committee meetings at which particular
matters relating to particular products were discussed.
    In August 2008, after an internal assessment of FDA's advisory
committee process and based on the comments submitted to the docket for
the January 2002 draft guidance and a revised draft guidance published
for public comment in October 2007, the agency issued guidance that
expanded public availability of relevant information, brought
additional transparency to FDA's waiver process, and increased the
consistency and clarity of the process (www.fda.gov/downloads/
RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm125647.pdf).
    FDA is now making available for public comment revisions to the
August 2008 guidance that provide even greater transparency. The agency
has tentatively concluded that it is appropriate to request that
individuals receiving a waiver of conflict of interest to participate
in an FDA advisory committee meeting disclose the name of the company
or institution when identifying the ``nature'' of the disqualifying
financial interest.
    In determining how much information to publicly disclose, FDA needs
to provide enough detail so the public can understand the nature of the
potential conflict and FDA's decisionmaking regarding participation,
while not disclosing so much detail that the agency would be unable to
attract essential expertise to its advisory committees. Under the
August 2008 guidance, the nature of the financial interest was
identified only as sponsor, competitor, or other affected firm. This
approach was informed, in part, by a survey in 2001 of active advisory
committee members that asked whether members would decline to
participate based on varying levels of disclosure.
    FDA is now proposing to disclose more detail than it did under its
August 2008 guidance. Specifically, the agency proposes to disclose the
name of the company or institution associated with the financial
interest. New information indicates that this additional detail would
not be a deterrent to current and potential advisory committee members.
For example, the agency notes that academic institutions, peer-reviewed
journals, and scientific symposia, among other entities/venues, have in
recent years developed more rigorous policies for disclosure of
potential conflicts of interest with the work that is being presented
or discussed. (See ``Conflict of Interest in Medical Research,
Education, and Practice, Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical
Research, Education, and Practice, Board on Health Sciences Policy,''
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (see p. 62 at http://
books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12598). While policies differ
among organizations, many provide for disclosure of the name of the
company or entity constituting the potential conflict of interest. (See
``Uniform Format for Disclosure of Competing Interests in ICMJE
Journals'' that describes a disclosure policy and format that includes
identification of the entity that is the source of the financial
interest; adopted by all International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors (ICMJE) journals (accessed at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/
content/full/361/19/1896)). In addition, FDA informally polled several
active advisory committee members. While not a representative sample,
the survey indicated that disclosing the names of companies would not
adversely affect FDA's ability to attract and retain expert advisors.
Accordingly, we have tentatively concluded that the public now expects
this level of detail to help them understand the nature of a potential
conflict and that individuals would accept this level of detail as a
routine part of required disclosures.
    To help us in issuing a final guidance, FDA is requesting comments
on whether disclosing the name of the company or institution associated
with the financial interest would: (1) Increase the transparency of
FDA's decisions regarding advisory committee member participation and
(2) not significantly deter current and potential advisory committee
members from service on those committees.
    The draft guidance also includes a template for disclosing to the
public the financial interests for which waivers are granted and a
template for disclosing to the public all waivers that FDA grants. The
draft guidance further describes FDA's process for making these
documents available on its Web site in advance of each advisory
committee meeting.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on public
availability of information regarding advisory committee members'
financial interests and waivers granted by FDA to permit participation
in advisory committee meetings. It does not create or confer any rights
for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm122045.htm
or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: April 19, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-9313 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 78643]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32379]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13242-001]

Whitman River Dam, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On October 19, 2011, Whitman River Dam, Inc. filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Westminster Dam
Hydroelectric Project (Westminster Project or project) to be located on
the Whitman River, near Westminster, Worcester County, Massachusetts.
The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the
permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit
term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to
perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or
waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) An earthen and masonry
dam, 31-foot-high and 1,500-foot-long, (2) a head pond with storage of
870.0 acre-feet, (3) two existing 30-inch diameter discharge pipes, and
(4) a new powerhouse located in the vicinity of the discharge pipes
containing one generating unit having a capacity of 35 kilowatts. The
estimated annual generation of the Westminster Project would be 218,000
kilowatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert Francis, President, Whitman River
Dam, Inc., P.O. Box 145, 10 Tommy Francis Road, Westminster, MA 01473.
    FERC Contact: Jeff Browning; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-(866) 208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13242-001) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: December 9, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32379 Filed 12-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 129 (Friday, July 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31668-31671]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14243]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81063; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend its Fee Schedule Concerning the Options
Regulatory Fee

June 30, 2017.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 June 23, 2017, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to clarify the manner in which the
Exchange assesses its Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF''), and also to
align its ORF rule text to rule text recently adopted by the Exchange's
affiliate, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL''), with respect to its
ORF.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80035 (February 14,
2017), 82 FR 11272 (February 21, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-09); 80035
(March 30, 2017), 82 FR 18045 (April 10, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-15);
80875 (June 7, 2017), 82 FR 27096 (June 13, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-
26). The replacement filings did not increase or decrease the amount
of the ORF, but rather clarified the application of the ORF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, the Exchange charges an ORF in the amount of $0.0045 per
contract side. The proposed rule change does not change the amount of
the ORF, but instead modifies the rule text to clarify how the ORF is
assessed and collected. The proposed rule change also aligns the ORF
rule text of the Exchange to rule text recently adopted by the
Exchange's affiliate, MIAX PEARL, with respect to its ORF.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The per-contract ORF will continue to be assessed by MIAX Options
to each MIAX Options Member for all options transactions, including
Mini Options, cleared or ultimately cleared by the Member which are
cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')

in the ``customer'' range, regardless of the exchange on which the
transaction occurs. The ORF will be collected by OCC on behalf of MIAX
Options from either (1) a Member that was the ultimate clearing firm
for the transaction or (2) a non-Member that was the ultimate clearing
firm where a Member was the executing clearing firm for the
transaction. The Exchange uses reports from OCC to determine the
identity of the executing clearing firm and ultimate clearing firm.
    To illustrate how the ORF is assessed and collected, the Exchange
provides the following set of examples. If the transaction is executed
on the Exchange and the ORF is assessed, if there is no change to the
clearing account of the original transaction, then the ORF is collected
from the Member that is the executing clearing firm for the
transaction. (The Exchange notes that, for purposes of the Fee
Schedule, when there is no change to the clearing account of the
original transaction, the executing clearing firm is deemed to be the
ultimate clearing firm.) If there is a change to the clearing account
of the original transaction (i.e., the executing clearing firm ``gives-
up'' or ``CMTAs'' the transaction to another clearing firm), then the
ORF is collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the
transaction--the ultimate clearing firm. The ultimate clearing firm may
be either a Member or non-Member of the Exchange. If the transaction is
executed on an away exchange and the ORF is assessed, then the ORF is
collected from the ultimate clearing firm for the transaction. Again,
the ultimate clearing firm may be either a Member or non-Member of the
Exchange. The Exchange notes, however, that when the transaction is
executed on an away exchange, the Exchange does not assess the ORF when
neither the executing clearing firm nor the ultimate clearing firm is a
Member (even if a Member is ``given-up'' or ``CMTAed'' and then such
Member subsequently ``gives-up'' or ``CMTAs'' the transaction to
another non-Member via a CMTA reversal). Finally, the Exchange will not
assess the ORF on outbound linkage trades, whether executed at the
Exchange or an away exchange. ``Linkage trades'' are tagged in the
Exchange's system, so the Exchange can readily tell them apart from
other trades. A customer order routed to another exchange results in
two customer trades, one from the originating exchange and one from the
recipient exchange. Charging ORF on both trades could result in double-
billing of ORF for a single customer order, thus the Exchange will not
assess ORF on outbound linkage trades in a linkage scenario. This
assessment practice is identical to the assessment practice currently
utilized by the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX PEARL.
    As a practical matter, when a transaction that is subject to the
ORF is not executed on the Exchange, the Exchange lacks the information
necessary to identify the order entering member for that transaction.
There are countless order entering market participants, and each day
such participants can and often do drop their connection to one market
center and establish themselves as participants on another. For these
reasons, it is not possible for the Exchange to identify, and thus
assess fees such as an ORF, on order entering participants on away
markets on a given trading day. Clearing members, however, are
distinguished from order entering participants because they remain
identified to the Exchange on information the Exchange receives from
OCC regardless of the identity of the order entering participant, their
location, and the market center on which they execute transactions.
Therefore, the Exchange believes it is more efficient for the operation
of the Exchange and for the marketplace as a whole to collect the ORF
from clearing members.
    As discussed below, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC.
The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with
respect to a Member's activities supports applying the ORF to
transactions cleared but not executed by a Member. The Exchange's
regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Member
enters a transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf.
The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including
performing surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation,
front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading.
These activities span across multiple exchanges.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer
options business, including performing routine surveillances and
investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and
enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated
from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory
fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the
Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange notes that its regulatory
responsibilities with respect to Member compliance with options sales
practice rules have been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'') under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not designed
to cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange will continue to monitor MIAX Options
regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If
the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient
to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will
adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The
Exchange will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory
circular at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the change.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the
exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory
obligation to enforce compliance by Members and their associated
persons under the Act and the rules of the Exchange and to surveil for
other manipulative conduct by market participants (including non-
Members) trading on the Exchange. The Exchange cannot effectively
surveil for such conduct without looking at and evaluating activity
across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's market surveillance
programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across
all options markets, such as surveillance for position limit
violations, manipulation, front-running and contrary exercise advice
violations/expiring exercise declarations. While much of this activity
relates to the execution of orders, the ORF is assessed on and
collected from clearing firms. The Exchange, because it lacks access to
information on the identity of the entering firm for executions that
occur on away markets, believes it is appropriate to assess the ORF on
its Members' clearing activity, based on information the Exchange
receives from OCC, including for away market activity. Among other
reasons, doing so better and more accurately captures activity that
occurs away from the Exchange over which the Exchange has a degree of
regulatory responsibility. In so doing, the Exchange believes that
assessing ORF on Member clearing firms equitably distributes the
collection of ORF in a fair and reasonable manner.

Also, the Exchange and the other options exchanges are required to
populate a consolidated options audit trail (``COATS'') \5\ system in
order to surveil a Member's activities across markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly
to effectively surveil certain rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works
with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related
issues. Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG''),\6\ the Exchange shares information and coordinates inquiries
and investigations with other exchanges designed to address potential
intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. The Exchange's
participation in ISG helps it to satisfy the requirement that it has
coordinated surveillance with markets on which security futures are
traded and markets on which any security underlying security futures
are traded to detect manipulation and insider trading.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to coordinate
intermarket surveillance among the SROs by co-operatively sharing
regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement between the
parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to coordinate
regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket trading abuses
and manipulations.
    \7\ See Section 6(h)(3)(I) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will
avoid having Members direct their trades to other markets in order to
avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share for
regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then a
Member would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated
exchange. Other exchanges do impose a similar fee on their member's
activity,\8\ including the activity of those members on MIAX PEARL.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Similar regulatory fees have been instituted by Nasdaq PHLX
(See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61133 (December 9, 2009),
74 FR 66715 (December 16, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-100)); Nasdaq ISE (See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61154 (December 11, 2009), 74 FR
67278 (December 18, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-105)); and Nasdaq GEMX (See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70200 (August 14, 2013) 78 FR
51242 (August 20, 2013) (SR-Topaz-2013-01)).
    \9\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO
charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRAs Trading Activity Fee \10\
and the NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, CBOE, Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq GEMX
and BOX ORF. While the Exchange does not have all the same regulatory
responsibilities as FINRA, the Exchange believes that, like other
exchanges that have adopted an ORF, its broad regulatory
responsibilities with respect to a Member's activities, irrespective of
where their transactions take place, supports a regulatory fee
applicable to transactions on other markets. Unlike FINRA's Trading
Activity Fee, the ORF would apply only to a Member's customer options
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 34021 (June 6, 2003) (SR-NASD-2002-148).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange specifies in the Fee Schedule that the
Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any
such fee change will be effective on the first business day of February
or August. In addition to submitting a proposed rule change to the
Commission as required by the Act to increase or decrease the ORF, the
Exchange will notify participants via a Regulatory Circular of any
anticipated change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days
prior to the effective date of the change. The Exchange believes that
by providing guidance on the timing of any changes to the ORF, the
Exchange would make it easier for participants to ensure their systems
are configured to properly account for the ORF.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in that it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed clarifications in the Fee
Schedule to the ORF furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act and are equitable and reasonable since they expressly describe the
Exchange's existing practices regarding the manner in which the
Exchange assesses its ORF.
    The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to Members in that
it is charged to all Members on all their transactions that clear as
customer at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures
fairness by assessing fees to those Members that are directly based on
the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating
customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires
greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating
non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and
less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated with
administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall
regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with
administering the non-customer component (e.g., Member proprietary
transactions) of its regulatory program.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of
supervising and regulating Members' customer options business including
performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations,
financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and
enforcement activities. The Exchange will monitor, on at least a semi-
annual basis the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure
that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does
not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange has
designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined with all of
the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less than or equal to the
Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Commission's
view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to
support the Exchange's business side. In this regard, the Exchange
believes that the current amount of the fee is reasonable.
    The Exchange believes that limiting changes to the ORF to twice a
year on specific dates with advance notice is reasonable because it
will give participants certainty on the timing of changes, if any, and
better enable them to properly account for ORF charges among their
customers. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in the same
manner to all Members that are subject to the ORF and provide them with
additional advance notice of changes to that fee.
    The Exchange believes that collecting the ORF from non-Members when
such non-Members ultimately clear the transaction (that is, when the
non-

Member is the ``ultimate clearing firm'' for a transaction in which a
Member was assessed the ORF) is an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other
persons using its facilities. The Exchange notes that there is a
material distinction between ``assessing'' the ORF and ``collecting''
the ORF. The ORF is only assessed to a Member with respect to a
particular transaction in which it is either the executing clearing
firm or ultimate clearing firm. The Exchange does not assess the ORF to
non-Members. Once, however, the ORF is assessed to a Member for a
particular transaction, the ORF may be collected from the Member or a
non-Member, depending on how the transaction is cleared at OCC. If
there was no change to the clearing account of the original
transaction, the ORF would be collected from the Member. If there was a
change to the clearing account of the original transaction and a non-
Member becomes the ultimate clearing firm for that transaction, then
the ORF will be collected from that non-Member. The Exchange believes
that this collection practice is reasonable and appropriate, and was
originally instituted for the benefit of clearing firms that desired to
have the ORF be collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears
the transaction.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The ORF is not
intended to have any impact on competition. Rather, it is designed to
enable the Exchange to recover a material portion of the Exchange's
cost related to its regulatory activities. The Exchange is obligated to
ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in
combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed
regulatory costs. Unilateral action by MIAX Options in establishing
fees for services provided to its Members and others using its
facilities will not have an impact on competition. In the highly
competitive environment for equity options trading, MIAX Options does
not have the market power necessary to set prices for services that are
unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory in violation of the Act. The
Exchange's ORF, as described herein, is comparable to fees charged by
other options exchanges for the same or similar services. The Exchange
believes that limiting the changes to the ORF to twice a year on
specific dates with advance notice is not intended to address a
competitive issue but rather to provide Members with better notice of
any change that the Exchange may make to the ORF.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing
for Commission Action
    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \15\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-MIAX-2017-31 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 No. SR-MIAX-2017-31. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-MIAX-2017-31, and should be
submitted on or before July 28, 2017.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14243 Filed 7-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32914-32916]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15029]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26601; FMCSA-2009-0115; FMCSA-2011-0080; FMCSA-
2011-0093; FMCSA-2011-0103; FMCSA-2013-0015; FMCSA-2013-0016; FMCSA-
2013-0017; FMCSA-2015-0058; FMCSA-2015-0059]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions of 145
individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM
to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below.

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 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

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

II. Background

    On May 15, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision
to renew exemptions for 145 individuals from the insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV
in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR
22382). The public comment period ended on June 14, 2017, and no
comments were received.

    As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the
eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these
exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current
regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 145 renewal exemption applications
and that no comments were received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to
exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with
ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
    As of June 2, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 20073; 76 FR
32015):

Donovan A. Bloomfield (MA), Kyle T. Brewer (NE), Rastus A. Bryant, Jr.
(SC), Daniel J. Cahalan (WV), C. Shawn Fox (OH), Brad S. Gray (MD),
Troy M. Keller (PA), Edmund D. Kilmartin III (MI), Michael G. Moseley
(NC), Francisco M. Torres (NM), Mark H. Wilcox (MN).

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0080. Their
exemptions are effective as of June 2, 2017, and will expire on June 2,
2019.
    As of June 6, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 21 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 26133; 80 FR
60743):

Robert L. Adams (GA), Steven D. Beale (WA), Kevin N. Bigham (PA), Eric
B. Bratanich (WI), Jeffry L. Bromby (CA), Joel R. Currie (MN), George
C. Druzak (PA), William L. Duncan (FL), Leland R. Frazier, Jr. (GA),
Louis E. Graves (MS), Loren G. Howard (AK), John A. Irwin (IL), Marvin
T. Kruse (SD), Richard L. Langdon (NY), Amanda K. Perez-Littleton (NM),
Michael J. Peterson (MN), Thomas E. Ringstaff, Jr. (OH), Milton E.
Sullivan (VA), John E. Vee (IA), Russell A. Wilkins (VA), David A.
Wolff (NY).

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0058. Their
exemptions are effective as of June 6, 2017, and will expire on June 6,
2019.
    As of June 8, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (72 FR 12656; 72 FR
31875):

David M. Beard (CO), David R. Burton (WY), Esko G. Cate (WA), Stephen
R. Clemens (MI), Johnny W. Corbin (KY), Mark K. Eaton (MN), Chad L.
Erickson (WA), Kendal B. Heath (NC), Jon D. Huntsinger (SD), Robbie L.
Jones (IN), Lucas J. Jordon (FL), Murl R. Kimmel (IL), Michael G.
McIntosh (WA), Judith A. Neel (IN), Danny E. Norment (TN), Samuel N.
Prindle (IL), Mark W. Sadowski (IN), Thomas M. Sandahl (WI), Anthony
Ybarra (MN).

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26601. Their
exemptions are effective as of June 8, 2017, and will expire on June 8,
2019.
    As of June 11, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 41 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 20381; 78 FR
35088; 80 FR 26979; 80 FR 45575):

Donald J. Barber, II (FL), Kenneth V. Bartlett (PA), Derek A. Becker
(IL), Robert J. Boardwick (NJ), Robert E. Clark, Jr. (VA), Robert G.
Costa (NJ), Thomas J. Cummings (IA), Gary E. Davidge (MD), Stephen L.
Drake (TX), David E. Goddard, Jr. (WV), William J. Hannan, 3rd (NJ),
David H. Heins (IL), Korry W. Hullinger (UT), Daniel A. Johns (PA),
James V. Kuhns, Jr. (PA), Craig C. Leckie (OR), Robert T. Lee (WI),
Tyler S. Lewis (AK), Zackery L. Lowe (VA), Gary D. MacFarlane (ME),
Edward W. Masser (PA), David J. Mathews (MN), Brian L. Merlo (CA),
Brian K. Miesner (MO), Terrance M. Morrisette (MN), Patrick S. Murray
(OK), Shane J. Nesheim (WI), Lisa R. Olson (MT), Kevin J. Riedl (WI),
Richard E. Roberts (NC), Stephen D. Sandine (AR), Jeremy D. Schroeder
(OH), Jerry G. Severson, Jr. (IL), Richard J. Tallen (IN), Brett E.
Thein (GA), Kelly R. Troll (MN), Ryan R. Turnbull (NY), Jonathan
Walston (IA), Graciano Wharton-Ramirez (NJ), Rick G. White (WA),
Randall L. Williamson (IL).

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2013-0015; FMCSA-2015-0059. Their exemptions are effective as of
June 11, 2017, and will expire on June 11, 2019.
    As of June 12, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 19271; 74 FR
28096):

Edward E. Back III (VA), Aaron Bailey (MA), George E. Hardman (GA),
Brian K. Moore (TN), Zachary T. Patton (AZ), Terry L. Robinett (AR),
Scot J. Suhr (IN), Kenneth R. Walker (TN), Blake A. Woolman (MO).

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0115. Their
exemptions are effective as of June 12, 2017, and will expire on June
12, 2019.
    As of June 20, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 25 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 22599; 78 FR
24795; 78 FR 37272; 78 FR 37273):

Willie J. Brock (MO), Roger S. Davis (PA), Edgar I. Duque (NY), Kevin
J. Fuller (MI), Kevin D. Gentes (IL), John M. Hawk (MN), Joel M. Jock
(VA), Michael J. Makwinski (NJ), James S. Marunczak (PA), Michael J.
Moynihan (NH), William A. Nearhood (PA), Fernand L. Poulin (NH), James
A. Pruitt (GA), Tony E. Pullen (IN), Michael M. Sanchez (NM), Joseph
Sawicki, III (NY), Nathaniel Scales Jr. (DE), Michael Schrock III (TN),
Jimmy W. Scroggins (AR), Michael Steinman (PA), Mark A. Stromberg (MN),
Christopher T. Thieneman (KY), Daniel J. Wagner (TX), Andrew J. White
(IA), Michael D. Ziegler (PA).

    The drivers were included in docket Nos: FMCSA-2013-0016; FMCSA-
2013-0017. Their exemptions are effective as of June 20, 2017, and will
expire on June 20, 2019.
    As of June 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 25769; 76 FR
37171):

John C. Beason, Jr. (TN), Adam R. Errickson (NJ), Jon M. Greiner (MN),
Gregory M. Hoyt (VT), Robert E.

Jackson (NC), Kimm D. Jacobson (MN), Daryl D. Jibben (MN), Jimmy G.
Lee, Jr. (NC), Daniel S. May (IA), Gerald D. McElya (TX), Donald B.
Ramaley (PA), Floyd M. Tyler (PA).

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2011-0103. Their
exemptions are effective as of June 24, 2017, and will expire on June
24, 2019.
    As of June 28, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 21792; 76 FR
37882):

Terry J. Johnson (MN), Todd L. McAuley (NC), Stephen A. Miles (OH),
Edgar M. Ridlon, Jr. (VT), Andrew M. Schutt (IL), John W. Wortman (WI),
Kemlyn K. Yowell (OH).

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2011-0093. Their
exemptions are effective as of June 28, 2017, and will expire on June
28, 2019.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid
for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and
31315.

    Issued on: July 7, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-15029 Filed 7-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57497-57500]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23258]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87372; File No. SR-ISE-2019-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make Permanent
Certain Options Market Rules That Are Linked to the Equity Market Plan
To Address Extraordinary Market Volatility

October 21, 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 October 18, 2019, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to make permanent certain options market
rules that are linked to the equity market Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.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 make permanent
certain options market rules in connection with the equity market Plan
to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan'' or the ``Plan''). This change is being proposed in connection
with the recently approved amendment to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan
that allows the Plan to continue to operate on a permanent basis
(``Amendment 18'').\3\ This proposed rule change is substantially
similar to a recently-approved rule change by Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019) (Order Approving Amendment No.
18).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 86744 (August 23,
2019), 84 FR 45565 (August 29, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-049) (Notice of
Filing); and 87311 (October 15, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-049) (Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2). The
Exchange understands that the other national securities exchanges
will also file similar proposals to make permanent their respective
pilot programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an attempt to address extraordinary market volatility in NMS
Stocks, and, in particular, events like the severe volatility on May 6,
2010, U.S. national securities exchanges and the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (collectively, ``Participants'') drafted the
Plan pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS and under the Act.\5\ On
May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan, as amended, on a one-
year pilot basis.\6\ Though the Plan was primarily designed for equity
markets, the Exchange believed it would, indirectly, potentially impact
the options markets as well. Thus, the Exchange has previously adopted
and amended Options 3, Section 9(d) and Supplementary Material .01 to
Options 3, Section 20 to ensure the option markets were not harmed as a
result of the Plan's implementation and has implemented such rules on a
pilot basis that has coincided with the pilot period for the Plan (the
``Options Pilots'').\7\ Options 3, Section 9(d) addresses the interplay
of the Exchange's rules in response to the Plan, and includes

provisions on how the Exchange will treat certain options orders during
a limit or straddle state as well as options market maker quoting
obligations during a limit or straddle state. In addition,
Supplementary Material .01 to Options 3, Section 20 provides that an
execution will not be subject to obvious or catastrophic error review
if it occurred during a limit or straddle state. A limit or straddle
state occurs when at least one side of the National Best Bid (``NBB'')
or Offer (``NBO'') bid/ask is priced at a non-tradable level.
Specifically, a straddle state exists when the NBB is below the lower
price band while the NBO is inside the prices band or when the NBO is
above the upper price band and the NBB is within the band, while a
limit state occurs when the NBO equals the lower price band (without
crossing the NBB), or the NBB equals the upper price band (without
crossing the NBO). The Exchange adopted the Options Pilots to protect
investors because when an underlying security is in a limit up-limit
down state, there will not be a reliable price for the security to
serve as a benchmark for the price of the option. Specifically, the
Exchange adopted Supplementary Material .01 to Options 3, Section 20
because the application of the obvious and catastrophic error rules
would be impracticable given the potential for lack of a reliable NBBO
in the options market during limit and straddle states. When adjusting
or busting a trade pursuant to the obvious error rule, the
determination of theoretical value of a trade generally references the
NBB (for erroneous sell transactions) or NBO (for erroneous buy
transactions) just prior to the trade in question, and is therefore not
reliable when at least one side of the NBBO is priced at a non-
tradeable level, as is the case in limit and straddle states. In such a
situation, determining theoretical value may often times be a very
subjective rather than an objective determination and could give rise
to additional uncertainty and confusion for investors. As a result,
application of the obvious and catastrophic error rules would be
impracticable given the lack of a reliable NBBO in the options market
during limit and straddle states, and may produce undesirable effects
or unanticipated consequences. As noted above, the Exchange adopted
additional measures via other Options Pilot rules that are designed to
protect investors during limit and straddle states.\8\ For example, the
Exchange will reject Market Orders (as defined in Options 3, Section
7(a)) and cancel Stop Orders \9\ during a Limit Up-Limit Down state to
ensure that only those orders with a limit price will be executed
during a limit or straddle state given the uncertainty of market prices
during such a state. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that
eliminating the application of obvious error rules during a limit or
straddle state eliminates the re-evaluation of a transaction executed
during such a state that could potentially create an unreasonable
adverse selection opportunity due to the lack of a reliable reference
price on one side of the market or another and discourage participants
from providing liquidity during limit and straddle states, which is
contrary to the goal in limiting participants' adverse selection with
the application of the obvious error rule during normal trading states.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes the Options Pilots and related
rules are designed to add certainty on the options markets, which
encourages more investors to participate in light of the changes
associated with the Plan. The Plan was originally implemented on a
pilot-basis in order to allow the public, the participating exchanges,
and the Commission to assess the operation of the Plan and whether the
Plan should be modified prior to approval on a permanent basis. As
stated, the Exchange adopted the Option Pilots to coincide with this
pilot; to continue the protections therein while the industry gains
further experience operating the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64547 (May 25,
2011), 76 FR 31647 (June 1, 2011) (File No. 4-631).
    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69329 (April 5,
2013), 78 FR 21657 (April 11, 2014) (SR-ISE-2013-22); and 80432
(April 11, 2017), 82 FR 18191 (April 17, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-03).
    \8\ As set forth in Options 3, Section 9(d), this includes rules
in connection with special handling for Market Orders and Stop
Orders, and options market maker quoting obligations during a limit
or straddle state.
    \9\ The Exchange will elect Stop Orders if the condition as
provided in Options 3, Section 7(d) is met, and, because they become
Market Orders, will then cancel them back. See Options 3, Section
9(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the order approving the establishment of the
obvious error pilot, as well as the extensions of the obvious error
pilot, the Exchange committed to submit monthly data regarding the
program and to submit an overall analysis of the obvious error pilot in
conjunction with the data submitted under the Plan and any other data
as requested by the Commission. Pursuant to a rule filing, approved on
April 7, 2014, each month, the Exchange committed to provide the
Commission, and the public, a dataset containing the data for each
straddle and limit state in optionable stocks that had at least one
trade on the Exchange.\10\ The Exchange has continued to provide the
Commission with this data on a monthly basis. For each trade on the
Exchange, the Exchange provides (a) the stock symbol, option symbol,
time at the start of the straddle or limit state, an indicator for
whether it is a straddle or limit state, and (b) for the trades on the
Exchange, the executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-ask spread,
time-weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-weighted average
quoted depth at the offer, high execution price, low execution price,
number of trades for which a request for review for error was received
during straddle and limit states, an indicator variable for whether
those options outlined above have a price change exceeding 30% during
the underlying stock's limit or straddle state compared to the last
available option price as reported by OPRA before the start of the
limit or straddle state. In addition, to help evaluate the impact of
the pilot program, the Exchange has provided to the Commission, and the
public, assessments relating to the impact of the operation of the
obvious error rules during limit and straddle states including: (1) An
evaluation of the statistical and economic impact of limit and straddle
states on liquidity and market quality in the options markets, and (2)
an assessment of whether the lack of obvious error rules in effect
during the straddle and limit states are problematic. The Exchange has
concluded that the Options Pilots do not negatively impact market
quality during normal market conditions,\11\ and that there has been
insufficient data to assess whether a lack of obvious error rules is
problematic, however, the Exchange believes the continuation of the
Options Pilots function to protect against any unanticipated
consequences in the options markets during a limit or straddle state
and add certainty on the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71884 (April 7,
2014), 79 FR 20269 (April 11, 2014) (SR-ISE-2014-22); see also ISE
LULD Reports, available at: https://www.nasdaq.com/solutions/options/LULD.
    \11\ See also ISE LULD Reports, available at: https://www.nasdaq.com/solutions/options/LULD. During the most recent Review
Period the Exchange did not receive any obvious error review
requests for Limit-Up-Limit Down trades, and Limit Up-Limit Down
trade volume accounted for nominal overall trade volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recently approved the Plan on a permanent basis
(Amendment 18).\12\ In connection with this approval, the Exchange now
proposes to amend Options 3, Section 9(d) and Supplementary Material
.01 to Options 3, Section 20 that currently implement provisions of the
Plan on a pilot basis to eliminate the pilot basis, which effectiveness
expires on October

18, 2019, and to make such rules permanent. In its approval order to
make the Plan permanent, the Commission recognized that, as a result of
the Participants' and industry analysis of the Plan's operation, the
Limit Up-Limit Down mechanism effectively addresses extraordinary
market volatility. Indeed, the Plan benefits markets and market
participants by helping to ensure orderly markets, but also, the
Exchange believes, based on the data made available to the public and
the Commission during the pilot period, that the obvious error pilot
does not negatively impact market quality during normal market
conditions.\13\ Rather, the Exchange believes the obvious error pilot
functions to protect against any unanticipated consequences in the
options markets during a limit or straddle state and add certainty on
the options markets. The Exchange also believes the other Options
Pilots rules provide additional measures designed to protect investors
during limit and straddle states. For example, the Exchange will reject
Market Orders and cancel Stop Orders during a Limit Up-Limit Down state
to ensure that only those orders with a limit price will be executed
during a limit or straddle state given the uncertainty of market prices
during such a state.\14\ This removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and national market system by
encouraging more investors to participate in light of the changes
associated with the Plan. The Exchange believes that if approved on a
permanent basis, the Options Pilots would permanently provide investors
with the above-described additional certainty of market prices and
mitigation of unanticipated consequences and unreasonable adverse
selection risk during limit and straddle states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 3.
    \13\ See supra note 11.
    \14\ See supra notes 8 and 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Commission's approval of Amendment 18 allowing the Plan
to operate on a permanent basis, the Exchange and other national
securities exchanges have determined that no further amendments should
be made to the Options Pilots; \15\ the current Options Pilots
effectively address extraordinary market volatility, are reasonably
designed to comply with the requirements of the Plan, facilitate
compliance with the Plan and should now operate on a permanent basis,
consistent with the Plan. The Exchange does not propose any substantive
or additional changes to Options 3, Section 9(d) or Supplementary
Material .01 to Options 3, Section 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85605 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16098 (April 17, 2019) (SR-ISE-2019-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, in that it is designed
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest and not to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
supports the objectives of perfecting the mechanism of a free and open
market and the national market system because it promotes transparency
and uniformity across markets concerning rules for options markets
adopted to coincide with the Plan. The Exchange believes that
eliminating the pilot basis for the Options Pilots and making such
rules permanent facilitates compliance with the Plan by adding
certainty to the markets during periods of market volatility, which has
been approved and found by the Commission to be reasonably designed to
prevent potentially harmful price volatility in NMS Stocks. It has been
determined by the Commission that the Plan benefits markets and market
participants by helping to ensure orderly markets, and, based on the
data made available to the public and the Commission during the pilot
period for Supplementary Material .01 to Options 3, Section 20, the
Plan does not negatively impact options market quality during normal
market conditions. Rather, the Plan, as it is implemented under the
obvious error pilot, functions to protect against any unanticipated
consequences in the options markets during a limit or straddle state
and add certainty on the options markets. During a limit or straddle
state, determining theoretical value of an option may be a subjective
rather than an objective determination given the lack of a reliable
NBBO, which may create an unreasonable adverse selection opportunity
and discourage participants from providing liquidity during limit and
straddle states. Therefore, the Exchange believes eliminating obvious
error review in such states would, in turn, eliminate uncertainty and
confusion for investors and benefit investors by encouraging more
participation in light of the changes associated with the Plan. As
stated, the Exchange believes the other Options Pilots rules provide
additional measures designed to protect investors during limit and
straddle states. For example, the Exchange will reject Market Orders
and cancel Stop Orders during a Limit Up-Limit Down state to ensure
that only those orders with a limit price will be executed during a
limit or straddle state given the uncertainty of market prices during
such a state.\18\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes that making the
Options Pilots permanent will further the goals of investor protection
and fair and orderly markets as the rules effectively address
extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra notes 8 and 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
necessary to reflect that the Plan no longer operates as a pilot and
has been approved to operate on a permanent basis by the Commission. As
such, Options 3, Section 9(d) and Supplementary Material .01 to Options
3, Section 20, which implement protections in connection with the Plan,
should be amended to operate on a permanent basis. The Exchange
understands that the other national securities exchanges will also file
similar proposals to make permanent their respective pilot
programs.\19\ Thus, the proposed rule change will help to ensure
consistency across market centers without implicating any competitive
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In addition, the Exchange's proposal is substantially
similar to Cboe's recently approved rule change. See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become

operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \22\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \23\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become effective and operative immediately upon filing.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will allow the current Options Pilots to continue on a permanent
basis without any changes, prior to the pilot expiration on October 18,
2019. For this reason, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative
upon filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \24\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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-ISE-2019-30 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-ISE-2019-30. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2019-30 and should be submitted on
or before November 15, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23258 Filed 10-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:
SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Wednesday, February 9, 2022 3:23 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: pressure monitoring vs leak detection

Hi,
I'm assuming that when you refer to "existing" plants you mean currently existing, not existing per the original Subpart L standards.

If that's the case, then of the 5 existing heat and/or non-recovery plants, all 5 of these plants monitor the pressures daily in a common battery tunnel in accordance with 63.303(a)(1)(ii) or (b)(1)(ii).

Kris

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2022 2:08 PM
To: SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: pressure monitoring vs leak detection

Hi. Hopefully this not too much of a problem either. Here is another item we need to verify. Please fill in the numbers in the Xs.

Coke oven doors: daily pressure monitoring: Owners or operators of X existing heat and/or non-recovery plants are required to either conduct leak detection procedures or monitor oven pressure daily.  X of these plants have elected to monitor pressure.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.