[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31812-31816]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14545]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83577; File No. SR-MIAX-2018-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 602, Appointment of Market
Makers

July 2, 2018.
    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 June 26, 2018, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX
Options'' or the ``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 Rule 602, Appointment of
Market Makers, to specify the new method by which Lead Market Makers
\3\ (``LMMs'') and Registered Market Makers \4\ (``RMMs'') request
appointments to one or more classes of option contracts traded on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Lead Market Maker'' means a Member registered
with the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in securities
traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the rights and
responsibilities specified in Chapter VI of the Exchange's Rules
with respect to Lead Market Makers. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ The term ``Registered Market Maker'' means a Member
registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in
securities traded on the Exchange, who is not a Lead Market Maker
and is vested with the rights and responsibilities specified in
Chapter VI of the Exchange's Rules with respect to Registered Market
Makers. See Exchange Rule 100.

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

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend MIAX Options Rule 602, Appointment
of Market Makers, to specify the new method by which LMMs and RMMs
would request appointments to (and relinquishment of appointments from)
one or more classes of option contracts traded on the Exchange pursuant
to Rule 602(a). The Exchange believes this proposal would improve the
efficiency of the appointment process for both the Exchange and for
these types of Market Makers.\5\ Other option exchanges also specify a
method which governs the appointment of market makers to classes of
option contracts traded on the exchange, however, these methods, while
generally automated, differ somewhat across exchanges.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market Makers,''
``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market Makers''
collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ See, e.g.., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BZX'') Rules
22.3(a),(b) (Market Maker Registration); see also Nasdaq PHLX, LLC
(``Nasdaq Phlx'') Rule 3212(b) (Registration as a Market Maker);
Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM''), Chapter VII (Market Participants),
Section 3(a),(b) (Continuing Market Maker Registration); NYSE
American, LLC (``NYSE American''), Rule 923NY (Appointment of Market
Makers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once a Member \7\ has qualified as either an LMM or an RMM, such
Market Maker may request an appointment (or, following an appointment,
relinquishment from an appointment) in one or more option classes
pursuant to Rule 602. Currently, an LMM or RMM may request such an
appointment by contacting Exchange staff, either by phone or via email,
identifying those classes of option contracts in which the Market Maker
is seeking an appointment. A Primary Lead Market Maker (``PLMM''),\8\
however, goes through a different, more extensive appointment process.
Accordingly, the Exchange intentionally excluded PLMMs from this
proposal. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to exclude PLMMs from
this new appointment method because the Board or designated committee
appoints only one PLMM to each options class traded on the Exchange, as
opposed to the multiple number of LMMs and RMMs, and because of the
heightened obligations associated with performing the responsibilities
of a PLMM.\9\ Because of the heightened responsibilities of PLMMs, the
Exchange believes that it is appropriate to have a different method for
PLMMs on the one hand, and LMMs and RMMs on the other hand, with
respect to the method by which appointments (and relinquishments of
appointments) are requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \8\ A ``Primary Lead Market Maker'' is a Lead Market Maker
appointment by the Exchange to act as the Primary Lead Market Maker
for the purpose of making markets in securities traded on the
Exchange. The Primary Lead Market Maker is vested with the rights
and responsibilities specified in Chapter VI of these Rules with
respect to Primary Lead Market Makers. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \9\ See, for example, Exchange Rules 603 and 604 for certain
heightened obligations of PLMMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange's current practice, with respect to LMMs
and RMMs, after the LMM or RMM contacts Exchange staff either by phone
or via email, the Exchange staff then delivers that request to the
Board or a committee designated by the Board for its approval. Upon the
decision of the Board or committee designated by the Board regarding
that appointment, Exchange staff then notifies the Market Maker of the
determination, with such notification being made the next business day.
The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to make any changes to
timing of the notification, which will continue to be made the next
business day.
    Specifically, Rule 602(a) provides that ``[t]he Board or a
committee designated by the Board shall appoint Market Makers to one or
more classes of option contracts traded on the Exchange.'' \10\ In
addition to having the authority to appoint one PLMM to each options
class, ``[t]he Exchange will impose an upper limit on the aggregate
number of Market Makers that may quote in each class of options
(``Class Quoting Limit'' or ``CQL'').'' Currently, the CQL is set at
fifty (50) Market Makers per option class but the Exchange may
``increase the CQL for an existing or new option class if the President
determines that it would be appropriate.'' \11\ Further, Rule 602(c)(2)
provides that ``Market Makers requesting an appointment in a class of
options will be considered for the appointment in accordance with
paragraphs (a), (b) and (f) of this Rule 602, provided the number of
Market Makers appointed in the options class does not exceed the CQL.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 602(a).
    \11\ See Rule 602(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making appointments of Market Makers to one or more classes of
option contracts traded on the Exchange, the Board or designated
committee shall consider the financial resources available to the
Market Maker; the Market Maker's experience and expertise in market
making or options trading; the preferences of the Market Maker to
receive appointment(s) in specific option class(es); and the
maintenance and enhancement of competition among Market Makers in each
class of option contracts to which they are appointed.\12\ Rule
602(c)(2) also states that, when the number of Market Makers appointed
in the options class equals the CQL, all other Market Makers requesting
to be appointed in that options class will be wait-listed in the order
in which they submitted their request.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 602(a).
    \13\ See Rule 602(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current Rule, ``[t]he Board or designated committee may
suspend or terminate any appointment of a Market Maker under this Rule
[602] and may make additional appointments or change the option classes
included in a Market Maker's appointed classes whenever, in the Board's
or designated committee's judgment, the interests of a fair and orderly
market are best served by such action.'' \14\ Moreover, the Exchange
``shall periodically conduct an evaluation of Market Makers to
determine whether they have fulfilled performance standards relating
to, among other things, quality of markets, competition among Market
Makers, observance of ethical standards, and administrative factors.
The Exchange may consider any relevant information, including but not
limited to the results of a Market Maker evaluation questionnaire,
trading data, a Market Maker's regulatory history and such other
factors and data as may be

pertinent in the circumstances.'' \15\ If the Exchange finds that a
Market Maker has not met the performance standards, the Exchange may
take action, including suspending, terminating or restricting a Market
Maker's appointment or registration.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 602(e).
    \15\ See Rule 602(f).
    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend MIAX Options Rule 602 solely to
specify the new method by which LMMs and RMMs would request
appointments to (or relinquishment of appointments from) one or more
classes of option contracts traded on the Exchange pursuant to Rule
602(a). In particular, the Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretations &
Policies .02 to Rule 602 to provide that, ``Lead Market Makers and
Registered Market Makers shall request appointments to (and
relinquishment of appointments from) one or more classes of option
contracts traded on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 602(a) via an
Exchange approved electronic interface, which request must be submitted
prior to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time of the business day immediately
preceding the next trading day. The Exchange approved electronic
interface will also ensure that, before any appointment request (or
relinquishment of an appointment) is approved, the CQL established by
Rule 602 has not been exceeded. Appointments (and relinquishments of
appointments) shall become effective on the day after the request is
submitted, provided that it has been approved. Approvals and denials of
appointments (and relinquishment of appointments) shall be communicated
by the Exchange via the same Exchange approved electronic interface
through which the request was made.''
    The Exchange believes that requiring LMMs and RMMs to use an
Exchange approved electronic interface to request appointments to one
or more classes of option contracts would enable LMMs and RMMs to
streamline the process by which they request appointments (and
relinquishment of appointments) and get notified of approvals or
denials related to such requests, which, in turn, would reduce the time
and resources expended by such Market Makers and the Exchange on the
appointment process.
    The Exchange also believes this proposal would provide LMMs and
RMMs with more efficient access to the securities in which they want to
make markets and disseminate competitive quotations, which would
provide additional liquidity and enhance competition in those
securities. The Exchange would retain the ability to suspend or
terminate any appointment of a Market Maker if necessary to maintain a
fair and orderly market.\17\ The Exchange also notes that the proposed
changes to Rule 602 are similar in some respects to the rules of other
exchanges \18\ and therefore raises no new or novel issues.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that it is only proposing to specify
the new method by which LMMs and RMMs would request appointments to
(and relinquishment of appointments from) one or more classes of option
contracts traded on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 602(a), and would not
change the substantive provisions of the rules including the CQL,
quoting requirements, or the Exchange's ability to make additional
appointments or change the option classes included in a Market Maker's
requested appointment whenever, in the Board's or designated
committee's judgment, the interests of a fair and orderly market are
best served by such action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Rule 602(e).
    \18\ See e.g., Phlx Rule 3212(b) (``A PSX Market Maker may
become registered in an issue by entering a registration request via
an Exchange approved electronic interface with PSX's systems or by
contacting PSX Market Operations. Registration shall become
effective on the day the registration request is entered''); Phlx
Rule 3220(a) (``A market maker may voluntarily terminate its
registration in a security by withdrawing its two-sided quotation
from PSX. A PSX Market Maker that voluntarily terminates its
registration in a security may not re-register as a market maker for
one (1) business day.''). See also BZX Options Rules 22.3(b) (``An
Options Market Maker may become registered in a series by entering a
registration request via an Exchange approved electronic interface
with the Exchange's systems by 9:00 a.m. Eastern time. Registration
shall become effective on the day the registration request is
entered''); NOM, Chapter VII, Section 3(b) (``An Options Market
Maker may become registered in an option by entering a registration
request via a Nasdaq approved electronic interface with Nasdaq's
systems. Registration shall become effective on the day the
registration request is entered.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \19\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change removes
impediments to a free and open market because it would streamline the
process by which LMMs and RMMs request appointments to (and
relinquishment of appointments from) one or more classes of option
contracts traded on the Exchange and offer LMMs and RMMs the ability to
manage their appointments in a more efficient manner, through use of an
automated tool. The Exchange believes the proposed change would reduce
the burden on both LMMs and RMMs, and Exchange staff, which would
result in a fair and reasonable use of resources to the benefit of all
market participants. In particular, the proposal to require LMMs and
RMMs to use an Exchange approved electronic interface to request to be
appointed to a class, and to make changes thereto, is consistent with
Act because it would provide LMMs and RMMs with more efficient access
to the securities in which they want to make markets. The Exchange also
believes that allowing LMMs and RMMs to request relinquishment from
appointments using the same process used by LMMs and RMMs to request
appointments, would serve to promote just and equitable principles of
trade and benefit investors and the public interest by establishing a
more systematic way for LMMs and RMMs to manage their appointments and
provide more clarity with respect to the process.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that improving the efficiency of
the process by which LMMs and RMMs request appointments and
relinquishment of appointments on an automated basis without having to
manually contact Exchange staff is likewise consistent with the Act.
First, the Board or a designated committee will continue to have
responsibility for approving the appointments requested by LMMs and
RMMs in one or more classes of options contracts traded on the
Exchange. The Board or a designated committee would continue to
consider the relevant factors and conduct an evaluation of Market
Makers prior to their appointment. \21\ In addition, as noted above,
the Exchange would continue to have authority to suspend or terminate
any Market Maker appointment in the interest of a fair and orderly
market, including, if necessary to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices and protect investors, or if a Market Maker does not
satisfy its obligations with respect to an appointment.\22\
Furthermore, the

Exchange approved electronic interface utilized by LMMs and RMMs to
request an appointment will ensure that, before any additions to a
Market Maker's appointment are approved, the CQL established by Rule
602 has not been exceeded. Accordingly, the Exchange believes this
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra notes 10-14.
    \22\ See Rule 602(e). See also Rule 600(c) (regarding the
Exchange's ability to suspend or terminate a Market Maker's
registration based on ``a determination that such Member has failed
to properly perform as a Market Maker.'').
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would not result in unfair discrimination,
as it applies to all LMMs and RMMs equally. As noted above, the
Exchange intentionally excluded PLMMs from this proposal. The Exchange
believes it isn't unfairly discriminatory to exclude PLMMs from this
new appointment method because the Board or designated committee
appoints only one PLMM to each options class traded on the Exchange, as
opposed to the multiple number of LMMs and RMMs, and because of the
heightened obligations associated with performing the responsibilities
of a PLMM.\24\ Because of these heightened responsibilities of PLMMs,
the Exchange believes that it is not unfairly discriminatory to treat
PLMMs differently from LMMs and RMMs with respect to the method by
which appointments (and relinquishments of appointments) are requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposed rule change would reduce the burden on LMMs
and RMMs to manage their appointments, and thus provide greater
liquidity to the Exchange while reducing the time and resources
expended by such Market Makers and the Exchange on the appointment
process. Nevertheless, Market Makers would still be required to comply
with certain obligations to maintain their status as a Market Maker,
including that they provide continuous, two-sided quotations in their
appointed securities.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Rule 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as noted above, specifying the method of the appointment
process would also align the rules of the Exchange with the rules of
other options exchanges, where Market Makers presently have the ability
to select and make changes to their appointments and registrations via
an exchange-approved electronic interface.\26\ The Exchange believes
this consistency across exchanges would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that
members, regulators and the public can more easily navigate the
Exchange's rulebook and better understand the appointment process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra notes 6 and 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    MIAX Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it provides the same
enhancement to a group of similarly situated market participants--LMMs
and RMMs. The proposed rule change would reduce the burden on these
Market Makers to manage their appointments and thus provide greater
liquidity to the Exchange while reducing the time and resources
expended by such Market Makers and the Exchange on the appointment
process.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would help
these Market Makers to the detriment of market participants on other
exchanges, particularly because the proposed appointment process for
LMMs and RMMs is meant to simply create a more efficient process by
which such Market Makers can request an appointment, and it is similar
to the appointment and registration processes for market makers already
in place on other exchanges.\27\ LMMs and RMMs would still be subject
to the same obligations with respect to its appointment; however, the
proposed rule change would make the appointment process more efficient
for such Market Makers. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change would relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition,
as it would enable LMMs and RMMs to streamline the process by which
they request appointments (and relinquishment of appointments) and get
notified of approvals or denials related to such requests, which, in
turn, would reduce the time and resources expended by such Market
Makers and the Exchange on the appointment process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \28\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \29\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2018-13 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-MIAX-2018-13. 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-
MIAX-2018-13 and should be submitted on or before July 30, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14545 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14520-14521]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05366]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0015]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt seven individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate
CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in
one eye.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on February 5, 2021. The
exemptions expire on February 5, 2023.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0015 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202) 366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    On January 7, 2021, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from seven individuals requesting an exemption from vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the
public (86 FR 695). The public comment period ended on February 5,
2021, and one comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red,
green, and amber.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Tracy Ibinger
submitted a comment stating that the Minnesota Department of Public
Safety has no objections to the decision to grant an exemption to Burl
V. Ingebretsen.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on medical reports about the applicants' vision, as well as their
driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The
qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in the January 7, 2021, Federal
Register notice (86 FR 695) and will not be repeated here.
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The seven
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, corneal scarring, ectopia lentis, optic
nerve hypoplasia, and retinal detachment. In most cases, their eye
conditions did not develop recently. Five of the applicants were either
born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
The two individuals that developed their vision conditions as adults
have had them for a range of 3 to 4 years. Although each applicant has
one eye that does not meet the vision requirement in Sec.
391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other
eye, and, in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all
the tasks necessary to operate a CMV.
    Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a
valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting State licensing
requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a
CMV with their limited vision in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. We
believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history
provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely
in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations,
involves

substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other
roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested
urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic
than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and
traffic signals is generally required because distances between them
are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver
response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions.
    The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited
vision in careers ranging for 3 to 92 years. In the past 3 years, no
drivers were involved in crashes, and no drivers were convicted of
moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants achieved a record of
safety while driving with their vision impairment that demonstrates the
likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate
their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their
vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA
concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the
future.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the vision requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) and
(b) by a certified medical examiner (ME) who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under Sec.  391.41; (2)
each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the ME at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the seven exemption applications,
FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, Sec.
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:

Johnny J. Brown (MS)
Gordon L. Hendricks (TX)
Justin T. Hoben (IL)
Burl V. Ingebretsen (MN)
Weldon D. Rudder (OK)
Patrick W. Sargent (MT)
John F. Skrobarczyk (TX)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption
will be valid for 2 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(e) and 31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-05366 Filed 3-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


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

General Comment:The very reason I began to smoking ecigs is because I could feel like I was smoking, just without the tobacco. Without the tobacco and my choice between nicotine or not leaves me with a much better/healthier choice. Using the e-cigarette, the smell does not linger in my clothing or in the air.

E-cigarettes does not contain tobacco, and with varying choices of nicotine, I find no reason as to why vapeing should not be allowed indoors. It is not a cigarette and should not be treated as such.   A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.


[Federal Register: July 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43931]
[DOCID:fr29jy08-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP07-44-004; CP07-45-003]

Southeast Supply Header, LLC; Notice of Third Amendment
Application

July 22, 2008.
    On July 18, 2008, Southeast Supply Header, LLC (SESH) filed an
application requesting an amendment to the certificate of public
convenience and necessity issued on September 20, 2007, in Docket Nos.
CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas
Act, as amended, and section 157 Subpart A of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations. Specifically, SESH
requests approval for increased rates. SESH requests that the
Commission issue a final order granting it all necessary authorizations
by September 1, 2008.
    Any initial question regarding this application should be directed
to Brian D. O'Neill, at Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, 1101 New York Avenue, NW.,
Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-4213 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in the above
proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. (EST) on the specified comment date.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or
protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In
reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or
protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served
on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time August 4, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-17290 Filed 7-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Internet Daemon Owner<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 06/03/2005 10:33 PM	To

James Michael/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, GailAnn Cooper/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject

(153223307) F019 Comment Submission

11a. Mr.

12. Last Name

Sparks

13. First Name

John

14. Job Title

15. Organization

16. Address

836 Shawnee Trace Court

17. City

Cincinnati

18. State

OH

19. Zip Code

45255

20. Telephone

(513)232-3477

21. Fax

(513)232-6477

22. E-mail

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 23. Question/Comments

MEMO                           DRAFT

April 26,1995

To: Rick Brandes

From:  John Sparks

Subject:  FO19 and processing of aluminum in iron and zinc phosphate

conversion coating pretreatment processes.

In our meeting of April 20,1995, we discussed the inclusion of sludges

from zinc phosphate and iron phosphate pretreatment systems into FO19 when

aluminum substrates are processed in these systems.  In general, these

phosphate conversions coatings are normally used to treat steel prior to

painting. In some cases, these same systems are used to treat other

substrates including galvanize and aluminum.  When these "soft metals" are

processed, fluorides are introduced to the chemistry to help etch the

surface and with aluminum, to cause the precipitation of aluminum as

aluminum fluorides.  Aluminum ions are a "poison" to the process and are

necessarily removed by the fluoride.  Sludges from iron phosphate are

typically ferric phosphate, calcium phosphate and other salts from the

water source.  If aluminum is processed, aluminum fluoride is also

present.  Zinc pretreatment sludges contain the above salts plus 5-7% zinc

hydroxide and a smaller amount of nickel hydroxide.

FO19 indicates the present of chromate and cyanide in the sludges from

aluminum chemical conversion coatings.  Zinc phosphating and iron

phosphating processes do not contain chrome nor cyanide in the conversion

coating process.  On the other hand, chrome conversion coatings used for

aluminum substrates do contain chrome and possibly ferrocyanide

accelerators.  Steel and galvanize substrates are not processed in chrome

conversion processes.  Ferrous ions will "kill" the chrome baths.

It appears that FO19 is intended to describe the sludges from chromate

conversion coating of aluminum.  By using the term chemical conversion

coating, all non-chrome and phosphate pretreatment processes are included

in FO19.  This reduces the incentive to develop and switch to non chrome

conversion coating process including acid phosphate processes.   It also

imposes a penalty on manufacturing facilities that wish to add aluminum

parts to their production mix.

A case in point is the automotive industry that is using more aluminum to

decrease the weight of automobiles.  When aluminum hoods or other aluminum

parts are introduced into the prepaint zinc phosphate process the sludge

becomes hazardous waste by definition and not necessarily by composition.

The only new addition to the sludge is aluminum fluoride.  I was told by

representatives from the automobile companies that this waste code

reclassification increases production costs by $1.00 per car processed.

Other industries that process aluminium in iron and zinc phosphate

conversion coating systems experience increases in disposal costs for the

same reason.

It would seem that modifying the terminology of FO19 to a more precise and

technically correct definition would help resolve this problem.  The

offending sludge referred to in FO19 contains chromate and cyanide.  These

two chemistries are from chromate conversion coating of aluminium and not

from the iron and zinc phosphate conversion coating processing of steel,

galvanize and aluminium.  Changing the collective description "chemical

conversion coating" to the more precise definition "chromate conversion

coating" would correctly identify the process that generates the chrome

and cyanide bearing wastes.

As you mentioned, re-opening this issue may reveal objections not

previously considered.  We need to discuss this further and, as you

suggested, include industry's input.  Industry associations such as the

National Coil Coaters, AAMA and Aluminium Industry may be appropriate.

Please review and advise me of the next steps.  We can meet again at your

convenience.  My phone number is 233-9731 and the fax is 233-9577.

Host Environment

HTTP_USER_AGENT

submit

Send Question or Comment

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

WARNING NOTICE

This electronic mail originated from a federal government

computer system of the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA).  Unauthorized access or use

of this EPA system may subject violators to criminal,

civil and/or administrative action.  For official

purposes, law enforcement and other authorized personnel

may monitor, record, read, copy and disclose all

information which an EPA system processes.  Any person's

access or use, authorized and unauthorized, of this EPA

system to send electronic mail constitutes consent to these

terms.

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

This information is for tracking purposes only.

Submitting script: /cgi-bin/mail.cgi

Submitting host: <IP_ADDRESS> (<IP_ADDRESS>)

Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6)

Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

Referred: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/f019/f019-form.htm

TSSMS: epaoswer

Mail to File: f019.txt

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


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50408-50409]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17790]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0041; FRL-9949-76-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR94

Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory Definition of Volatile
Organic Compounds--Exclusion of 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-1-(2,2,2-
trifluoroethoxy) Ethane (HFE-347pcf2)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
revise the regulatory definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This proposed revision would add
1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-1-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy) ethane (also known as
HFE-347pcf2; CAS number 406-78-0) to the list of compounds excluded
from the regulatory definition of VOC on the basis that this compound
makes a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. In the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, we are
making this same amendment as a direct final rule without a prior
proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take
further action on this proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0041, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Souad Benromdhane, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts
Division, Mail Code C539-07, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-5315; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    This document proposes to revise the EPA's regulatory definition of
VOC for purposes of preparing state implementation plans (SIPs) to
attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone
under title I of the CAA by adding HFE-347pcf2 to the list of compounds
excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC on the basis that this
compound makes a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone
formation. We have published a direct final rule in the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because we view this
action as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment.
We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the
direct final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw
the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all
public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this direct final rule include,
but are not necessarily limited to, state and local air pollution
control agencies that adopt and implement regulations to control air
emissions of VOC; and industries manufacturing and/or using HFE-347pcf2
as a precision cleaning agent to remove contaminates including oil,
flux, fingerprints from items like medical devices, artificial
implants, crucial military and aerospace items, electric components,
printed circuit boards, optics, jewelry, ball bearings, aircraft
guidance systems, film, relays and a variety of metal components, among
others. In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic
copy of this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web.
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this action
will be posted on the EPA's Web site http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/actions.html#impl.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    Submitting CBI: Do not submit this information to the EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

II. Proposed Rule

    This proposed action would revise the EPA's regulatory definition
of VOC for purposes of preparing SIPs to attain the NAAQS for ozone
under title I of the CAA, by adding HFE-347pcf2 to the list of
compounds excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC on the basis
that this compound makes a negligible contribution to tropospheric
ozone formation. We have explained our reasons for this action in the
preamble to the direct final rule. The regulatory text for the proposal
is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the ``Rules
and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register. For further
supplementary information, the detailed rationale for the proposal and
the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule published under
``Rules and Regulations'' of the Federal Register.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. It does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting
requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
removes HFE-347pcf2 from the regulatory definition of VOC and thereby
relieves manufacturers, distributers and users of the compound from
requirements to control emissions of the compound.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule would remove HFE-347pcf2 from
the regulatory definition of VOC and thereby relieves manufacturers,
distributers and users from requirements to control emissions of the
compound. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. Since HFE-347pcf2 is utilized in specific industrial
applications where children are not present and dissipates quickly,
there is no exposure or disproportionate risk to children. This
proposed rule would remove HFE-347pcf2 from the regulatory definition
of VOC and thereby relieves manufacturers, distributers and users from
requirements to control emissions of the compound.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action would remove HFE-347pcf2 from the regulatory definition of
VOC and thereby relieves manufacturers, distributers and users of the
compound from requirements to control emissions of the compound.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 20, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17790 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 2718]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00773]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty Sixth RTCA SC-223 IPS and AeroMACS Plenary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Twenty Sixth RTCA SC-223 IPS and AeroMACS Plenary.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Twenty Sixth RTCA SC-223 IPS and AeroMACS Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 05-09, 2018 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: Hosted by Rockwell Collins, Inc
at, Hilton Melbourne Rialto Place, 200 Rialto Place, Melbourne, FL
32901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at [email protected]
or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or website at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Twenty Sixth RTCA SC-223 IPS and
AeroMACS Plenary. The agenda will include the following:

Monday, March 5, 2018, 9:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.

1. Welcome, Introductions, Administrative Remarks
2. Review of Previous Meeting Notes and Action Items
3. Review of Current State of Industry Standards
    A. ICAO WG-I
    B. AEEC IPS Sub Committee
    C. EUROCAE WG Status
4. Current State of Industry Activities
    A. SESAR Programs
    B. ESA IRIS Precursor
    C. Any Other Activities
5. IPS Technical Discussions
6. Review of IPS High Level Profile (Working Papers)
7. Review of IPS RFC Detail Profiles
8. Prioritization of Additional IETF RFCS for Profiling
9. Discussion of Potential Joint Work With EUROCAE WG-108
10. Any Other Topics of Interest
11. Plans for Next Meetings
12. Review of Action Items and Meeting Summary

Tuesday, March 6, 2018, 9:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.

13. Continue With Plenary Agenda

Wednesday, March 7, 2018, 9:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.

14. Continue With Plenary Agenda

Thursday, March 8, 2018, 9:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.

15. Continue With Plenary Agenda

Friday, March 9, 2018, 9:00 A.M.-12:00 P.M.

16. Continue With Plenary Agenda
17. Adjourn When Plenary Agenda is Complete
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 12, 2018.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-00773 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23968-23969]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09526]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69389; File No. SR-NYSEArca-013-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To
Remove Certain Obsolete Text

April 17, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 4, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the ``Fee Schedule'') to remove
certain obsolete text related to a fee that is no longer charged by the
Exchange and a credit that is no longer offered by the Exchange. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to remove certain
obsolete text related to (i) a designated examining authority (``DEA'')
fee that is no longer charged by the Exchange and (ii) a ``Liquidity
Provider Credit'' that is no longer offered by the Exchange. The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee change immediately.
    Pursuant to Rule 17d-1 of the Act, the Exchange may act as the DEA
for ETP Holders on NYSE Arca Equities.\4\ The Exchange charges certain
fees when it performs DEA services, as provided in the Fee Schedule. In
this regard, the Fee Schedule currently includes a reference to a $75
one-time registration fee per trader. The Exchange no longer charges
this particular DEA fee and therefore proposes to remove the obsolete
text related thereto from the Fee Schedule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1.
    \5\ The Exchange has not charged this fee since April 2007,
which corresponds to the elimination of the same $75 one-time
registration fee per trader on NYSE Arca Options. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 55679 (April 27, 2007), 72 FR 26190 (May 8,
2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first sentence of Footnote 12 in the Fee Schedule currently
provides that an ETP Holder that submits certain order types that
subsequently match against an inbound marketable order will not be
entitled to receive a Liquidity Provider Credit. However, effective
July 1, 2008 the Exchange eliminated the Liquidity Provider Credit.\6\
Therefore, when the Liquidity Provider Credit was eliminated, the first
sentence of current footnote 12 became obsolete and so it should have
been removed. Because it was not, the Exchange proposes to remove the
obsolete text now by deleting the first sentence in footnote 12 in the
Fee Schedule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58006 (June 23,
2008), 73 FR 36943 (June 30, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-64). Prior to
July 1, 2008, the Liquidity Provider Credit was offered to ETP
Holders for purposes of market data revenue sharing in Tape B
securities. See Id. At the time of SR-NYSEArca-2008-64, current
footnote 12 was changed from footnote 9 in the Fee Schedule to
footnote 8.
    \7\ The Exchange is proposing that the remaining text of
footnote 12 remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise
intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of
any problems that ETP Holders would have in complying with the proposed
change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because it will result in greater specificity and precision within the
Fee Schedule, which would contribute to reasonably ensuring that the
fees and credits described therein are clear and accurate.
Specifically, the proposed change is reasonable because it will remove
obsolete text from the Fee Schedule related to a DEA fee that is no
longer charged by the Exchange and a Liquidity Provider Credit that is
no longer offered by the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
all readers of the Fee Schedule, including all ETP Holders, would
benefit from the increased specificity that this proposed change would
provide.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issues. Rather, the proposed change
is designed to provide greater specificity and precision within the Fee
Schedule, which would contribute to reasonably ensuring that the fees
and credits described therein are clear and accurate.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)\10\ of the Act and

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \11\ thereunder, because it
establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \12\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-38 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-38. 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 on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal offices of NYSE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-38, and should be submitted on or before
May 14, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09526 Filed 4-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P